CBS devoted 5 minutes to "lipstick," other McCain attacks before reporting that "lipstick" attack was bogus
SUMMARY: The CBS Evening News devoted five minutes, in two segments, to the back-and-forth between the campaigns of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama over Obama's September 9 "lipstick" remark and other McCain attacks before CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante reported of the "lipstick" comments: "The facts: Obama had not mentioned Palin. He was focused on the central argument of his campaign -- that McCain's policies would be no different than President Bush's."
The September 10 edition of the CBS Evening News devoted five minutes, in two segments, to the back-and-forth between the campaigns of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama over Obama's September 9 "lipstick" remark and other McCain attacks -- including a statement by Capitol Hill correspondent Chip Reid that a McCain ad about the "lipstick" comment may work whether "true or not" -- before CBS White House correspondent Bill Plante reported of the "lipstick" comments: "The facts: Obama had not mentioned [Gov. Sarah] Palin. He was focused on the central argument of his campaign -- that McCain's policies would be no different than President Bush's."
Reid reported, "In one ad aired on the Internet, the McCain campaign accuses Barack Obama of suggesting that Palin is a pig," before airing a clip of the ad. He went on to say, "The Obama campaign called the ad 'pathetic.' Obama, they said, used a common expression to criticize the McCain campaign's policies, not Palin." After airing another ad from the McCain campaign, Reid stated, "Democratic officials called that ad, and The Wall Street Journal article it was based on, a flat-out, absolute fabrication -- but true or not, the ads may work." Reid then played a clip of Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia stating, "Any day that the campaign is about Sarah Palin given her current popularity, it's a good day for John McCain and a bad day for Barack Obama." Reid then said that "another sign that both campaigns have taken a hard turn on to the low road, in Philadelphia today, McCain was all but drowned out by hecklers shouting support for Obama." He provided no evidence that the Obama campaign was in any way responsible for the "hecklers," while citing their heckling as evidence of "both campaigns hav[ing] taken a hard turn on the low road."
In the second report, correspondent Dean Reynolds began by stating that Obama "played into the hands of his rivals with a flip comment that left him open to attack." After airing comments from Obama responding to the McCain campaign's charges about the "lipstick" comment, Reynolds stated that "by responding, Obama elevated the issue."
Five minutes after Reid had first mentioned the "lipstick" comments and after both Reid and Reynolds had aired statements from both the McCain and Obama campaigns without taking a position on whose argument was correct, Plante noted, in what anchor Katie Couric called a "Reality Check," that Obama hadn't mentioned Palin and was talking about McCain's policies when he made the "lipstick" comment. Plante went on to note that "[t]he colorfully descriptive phrase is often used by politicians, including John McCain." He later added, "Even the vice president has used it."
From the September 10 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
REID: Sarah Palin is, at this moment, in the air, on her way home to Alaska to see her son as he's deployed to Iraq, and she leaves behind a campaign that seems to get uglier everyday.
[begin video clip]
REID: In Northern Virginia today, John McCain and Sarah Palin drew their biggest crowd yet, more than 23,000, and there was no doubt who many of them came to see.
CROWD: Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.
PALIN: We're going to Washington to shake things up.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She's amazing. She thinks the way I think.
REID: But neither Palin nor McCain even mentioned the ugly war of words swirling around Palin that has all but consumed both campaigns. In one ad aired on the Internet, the McCain campaign accuses Barack Obama of suggesting that Palin is a pig.
OBAMA: But, you know, you can -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.
REID: The Obama campaign called the ad "pathetic." Obama, they said, used a common expression to criticize the McCain campaign's policies, not Palin. In the middle of that furor, the McCain campaign released another ad portraying Palin as a victim.
ANNOUNCER: Obama air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators, and opposition researchers into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin.
REID: Democratic officials called that ad, and The Wall Street Journal article it was based on, a flat-out, absolute fabrication -- but true or not, the ads may work.
LARRY SABATO (director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia): Any day that the campaign is about Sarah Palin, given her current popularity, it's a good day for John McCain and a bad day for Barack Obama.
REID: It's a campaign strategy focused on personality, not issues, as described by McCain's campaign manager last week.
RICK DAVIS (McCain campaign manager): This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.
REID: And in another sign that both campaigns have taken a hard turn on to the low road, in Philadelphia today, McCain was all but drowned out by hecklers shouting support for Obama.
[end video clip]
REID: Now, one question now is whether John McCain will see a drop in enthusiasm campaigning alone without Palin, and we're told when she does return from Alaska in a few days, they may well campaign more together than had been planned. Katie?
KATIE COURIC (anchor): OK, Chip Reid. Thanks a lot, Chip. If the McCain campaign was outraged over that lipstick comment, Senator Obama said today he's just as outraged over their use of it. Dean Reynolds, now, has that part of the story.
[begin video clip]
REYNOLDS: Having played into the hands of his rivals with a flip comment that left him open to attack, Obama today denounced what he called a cynical, insincere game played by the Republicans and a willing news media.
OBAMA: I mean, this whole thing about lipstick. Nobody actually believes that these folks are offended. They seize on an innocent remark, try to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they know that it's catnip for the news media.
REYNOLDS: But by responding, Obama elevated the issue. And though he tried to laugh it off, he did not seem amused.
OBAMA: Right, I'm talking about John McCain's economic policies, I say this is more of the same -- you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig -- and suddenly they say, "Oh, you must be talking about the governor of Alaska." This is what they want to spend two out of the last 55 days talking about.
REYNOLDS: Obama, though, spent some time on it in an interview for tonight's Late Show with David Letterman.
[begin video clip]
DAVID LETTERMAN (talk show host): Have you ever actually put lipstick on a pig?
PAUL SHAFFER (musical director): Whoops.
OBAMA: You know, the --
SHAFFER: Uh-oh.
OBAMA: The answer would be no. But I think it might be fun to try. ... Had I meant it this way, she would be the lipstick, you see. The failed policies of John McCain would be the pig.
[end video clip]
REYNOLDS: Jokes aside, Obama's aides have loudly complained that his words are being twisted by the Republicans and then spread by the press.
SEAN HANNITY (Fox News host): We saw the audience got the joke, calling the vice-presidential candidate a pig.
OBAMA: This McCain campaign would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future.
REYNOLDS: He has spent the last two weeks addressing the economy, energy, and education, but he said episodes involving what he called "phony outrage" block a meaningful discussion.
OBAMA: You know who ends up losing at the end of the day? It's not the Democratic candidate. It's not the Republican candidate. It's you.
[end video clip]
REYNOLDS: But Obama may be more willing now to mix it up. Sources tell CBS News he will no longer stand in the way of those partisan independent groups that could do in attack ads to John McCain what those behind the Swift Boat attacks did to [Sen.] John Kerry just four years ago. Katie?
COURIC: Dean Reynolds. Thanks very much, Dean.
The McCain campaign also took aim today at Senator Obama's record on sex education, but is that attack and the lipstick uproar really on target? For that, we turn to Bill Plante with this "Reality Check."
[begin video clip]
PLANTE: The McCain campaign jumped hard on the phrase "lipstick on a pig." In addition to this Internet-only video, their truth squad quickly set up a conference call. The claim: Obama was talking about Sarah Palin.
JANE SWIFT (McCain campaign "Palin Truth Squad" member): Senator Obama uttered what I can only deem to be disgraceful comments comparing Governor Palin to a pig.
PLANTE: What connected the comment to Palin? Governor Swift said it was this line from her convention speech.
PALIN: You know, they say the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull: lipstick.
PLANTE: The facts: Obama had not mentioned Palin. He was focused on the central argument of his campaign -- that McCain's policies would be no different than President Bush's.
OBAMA: That's just calling some -- the same thing -- something different. But you know, you can't -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig.
PLANTE: The colorfully descriptive phrase is often used by politicians, including John McCain, here talking about the health-care plan of another female politician, Hillary Clinton.
McCAIN: I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig.
PLANTE: Even the vice president has used it.
VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY: You can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but at the end of the day, it's still a pig.
PLANTE: McCain's campaign also released an ad criticizing Obama's education record, which makes this claim.
ANNOUNCER: Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners.
PLANTE: The facts: The bill introduced in the Illinois legislature never became law. It called for non-mandatory sex education for grades K-through-12 that was age and developmentally appropriate. For kindergartners, that included, among other things, how to say no to unwanted sexual advances.
[end video clip]
PLANTE: Obama did vote for the bill in committee, and he says he supports similar laws in other states, but he said the point was to help parents teach their children how to deal with sexual predators. Katie?
Yes I have a good memory 1976
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074802/
What a joke this Lipstick garbage has become and the networks should be ashamed for playing into the hands of McCain and Moosewoman.
Yes, 1976. I am a good person!
I thought a Col. Sanders started a drive thru pizza franchise in the mid
50's. Bring on the debates. I am hopeful Obama and Biden are able to articulate in simplistic English his positions and the rebutal of McC's positions. I can only hope the masses in the battleground states wake up. I hate reruns and don't want to see this movie for another 4 years.
Sarah Palin finished second in the Pro Salmon Tour last year using only her bare hands.
Catching the "old fish" that Barack Obama mentioned in his speech the other day....
:-)
Next it's off to Oklahoma for Wilderness Barbie. Can she win another title?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noodling
Next it's off to Oklahoma for Wilderness Barbie.
Once in Oklahoma, she'll play the part of Aunt Eller in a revival of the 1946 Rodgers & Hammerstein musical. Also look for her daughter Bristol to play the part of Ado Annie in the production - she promises to give a very spirited performance during her version of "I'm Just a Girl Who Caint Say No".
:-)
"REYNOLDS: But Obama may be more willing now to mix it up. Sources tell CBS News he will no longer stand in the way of those partisan independent groups that could do in attack ads to John McCain what those behind the Swift Boat attacks did to [Sen.] John Kerry just four years ago. Katie?"
Great. So now this idiot has put into the air the idea that quoting John McCain and showing his reverses on key positions which made him a "maverick" will be shown in the same light as the liars in the Swiftboat group.
It's quite amazing that a so-called "News" organization...
like CBS, would try to equate Obama hecklers with all the lies and filth that the McCain campaign has put out recently. This is supposedly an indication of both campaigns "taking the low road"? Give me a frikkin' break!!
If that isn't a perfect example of corporate media "in the tank" for McCain I don't know what is.
Great job by Media Matters.
It's quite amazing that a so-called "News" organization...
like CBS, would try to equate Obama hecklers with all the lies and filth that the McCain campaign has put out recently.
Edward R. Murrow is spinning in his grave.
Indeed, he is WZ...
And I guess Rupert Murdoch is dancing on it.
Mother of 5 Sarah Palin once danced the Charleston for 127.5 hours straight in a dance marathon, winning a Jeep Cherokee which she later sold on eBay.
And she did so after fighting off an army of rampaging polar bears to get to the dance marathon in the first place. (I know, I'm stealing your theme from another thread)
During the polar bear fight, she field-dressed a moose and delivered an Eskimo woman's baby.
Like it or not this pig/lipstick silliness became news. Now one could say it was news because the media wouldn't stop yapping about it.
So in this case yes ABC reported this "news", but at least they then offered the facts.
Off topic, but just throwing it out there to see if there's anything to it.
After lavishing all that praise on HC the other day, my boss, a dem, thinks Biden might step aside for Obama to let HC on the ticket. That would galvanize lots of women, and perhaps neutralize Palin. I haven't heard anything of the sort and doubt that its true. Any rumors circulating on the reliable internet.
Maybe Biden really doesnt' want to be VP, and likes where he's at in his senior positions in the senate. . ..
my post was phrased rather poorly, but I hope you get the gist of it.
If Biden did step aside for Hillary, would that not be the exact same pandering for votes the Dems accuse McCain of with picking Palin?
No, because the Democrats would be putting up a fully qualified candidate - unlike Caribou Barbie.
WZ
Oh yes..of course....I forgot in your world, the dems can do no wrong.....and never.....ever do anything or say anything just to get votes. I am sorry, I forgot,,,,,change we can believe in. Thats why Obama has given the dem 527s the go ahead to attack McCain. Its because he believes in Change.
It's about the qualifications. Remember?
POV suffers - ah say, suffers from memory loss, Foghorn. Why else would he support the things he does?
Sarah Palin has a photographic memory....
Unfortunately, Kodak stopped making that type of film a few years ago.
"Thats why Obama has given the dem 527s the go ahead to attack McCain."--POV
Can you provide a credible link to support that claim or were you just making things up...yet again? Or is it your just as reliable mindreading I have come to appreciate?
I am not claiming Obama is perfect, but he has been quite outspoken at keeping donations out of the hands of 527's and other independent groups - which would comletely undermine your claim...and I actually can provide a link to back up my claim:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10315.html
Another example of Obama's effect on diminishing the importance of 527's. MoveOn.org even shut down their powerful 527 operation at Obama's request! source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/20/moveonorg-shutters-its-527/
"The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has said he does not want "527s" and outside, independent groups advertising on his behalf in the general election. A "527? is an political organization that can raise money in high dollar amounts and launch political advocacy campaigns, including television ads.
"Past prominent "527s" include the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," a group that in 2004 attacked Sen. John Kerry's war record and arguably contributed to him losing his White House bid. But few had the impact of MoveOn's.
"The group will retain its political action committee, which can take donations up to $5,000, though the group says the average donation hovers in the $50 range.
"Even though its 527 is going away, MoveOn.org is not completely heeding Obama's request to stay off the airwaves. Last week, the group teamed up with one of the biggest labor unions, the American Federartion of State, County and Municipal Employees, to go up with a national television ad criticizing Sen. John McCain's position on the Iraq war.
"The impact of outside groups this cycle is still up for debate. Since Obama's request some Democratic leaning groups have seen their donor base thin, forcing them to abandon paid media plans and instead shift gears to focus more on research and message. Obama referenced the past power of 527 groups as a factor in deciding to opt out of public financing for the general election.
Now we can go with your baseless assertions or we can go with what appears to be really happening.
Open
here ya go
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/09/09/obama_quietly_reverses_stance_on_527_groups.html
Here is more for your newly opend mind
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php
Both of your links are about the same gossip from the same blogger, Marc Ambinder. The source for this informaiont is amazingly and conveniently anonymous. Why am I not surprised?
An Obama adviser privy to the campaign's internal thinking on the matter says that,with less than two months before the election and with the realization that Republicans have achieved financial parity with Democrats, they hope that Democratic allies -- what another campaign aide termed "the cavalry" -- will come to Obama's aid.--from PC's links
"exact same pandering for votes" is an interesting analysis. Show me how that is true by comparing/contrasting the two candidates.Maybe I'll see your POV
"If Biden did step aside for Hillary, would that not be the exact same pandering for votes the Dems accuse McCain of with picking Palin?"--POV
The answer is yes and it is refreshing to see you admit that McCain was pandering for votes in his pick of Palin.
Secondly, I don't think it would ever happen. Obama is not as cynical as McCain is.
"After lavishing all that praise on HC the other day, my boss, a dem, thinks Biden might step aside for Obama to let HC on the ticket. That would galvanize lots of women, and perhaps neutralize Palin. I haven't heard anything of the sort and doubt that its true. Any rumors circulating on the reliable internet".
I'm trying to figure out what is more ridiculous Cleetus, the fact that you think that the Obama camp have the same lack of respect and scruples as McCain and the religious "conservatives" who now run his campaign do for the women in your country, or the fact that work for a democrat who actually has this as a serious idea.
The reason you havn't heard about this is because the women who wanted Hillary Clinton as president did so because of her policies, not just because she was a woman. The picking of Caribuo barbie by the republicans shows that they do not get this. She galvanizes and stirs up the rabid base of christofacists, but the women who are dead against what she stands for will not jump ship. They would also be insulted by the thought that they would vote for someone like her.
I'm trying to figure out what is more ridiculous Cleetus, the fact that you think that the Obama camp have the same lack of respect and scruples as McCain and the religious "conservatives" who now run his campaign do for the women in your country, or the fact that work for a democrat who actually has this as a serious idea.
Uh . . . didn't I state: "I haven't heard anything of the sort and doubt that its true."
As for my employer, his theory is more that with HC goin after Palin, the gloves would be off, so to speak. She'd could tear her apart on policy and experience, without being subjected to charges of sexism . . . .
Okay Cleetus, i'll bite.
Uh . . . didn't I state: "I haven't heard anything of the sort and doubt that its true."
Then the simple question is, "why bother posting it?"
Could the answer be VERY BAD TROLL?
UK
Maybe he posted it because it is a good question, and one others have asked as well. Maybe, just maybe, you should worry about things in the UK, and stop "observing" us here. We have enough idiot opinions here, we sure dont need to import any!
Maybe, just maybe, you should worry about things in the UK, and stop "observing" us here. We have enough idiot opinions here, we sure dont need to import any!"
What Krusty, you mean like the opinions of Tony Blair, who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq which l supposed you never thought was anything to worry about when he was observing? Or how about Christopher Hitchens? Did you find his cheerleading of republican talking points idiotic? How about Tony Blankley? Was his "observing" okay with you as long as it was part of the republican hivemind? Let us not forget Thatcher, who was to Reagan what Lewinski was to Clinton. I'm sure her observations in the 80's met with your sten disproval.
"Maybe he posted it because it is a good question, and one others have asked as well.
No, he actually said:
"I haven't heard anything of the sort and doubt that its true."
That means he is pulling a statement from thin air. You on the other hand are pulling one out from your arse.
BTW, things in the UK are not going great. We have a housing crisis due to the fact that mortgages were given to people who really couldn't afford them and now, due to the economic downturn, a lot of people will be losing their homes. Luckly in the US the government have decided to nationalise the two biggest mortgage lenders in the country because if they had collapsed then it would have sent shockwaves through the British housing markets concidering how much money UK banks have tied up with Fannie May and Freddie Mac. We also have high petrol prices at the pumps, people want our troops out of Iraq, Jobs are being exported overseas, and a very, VERY unpopular man in charge who people cannot wait to see the back of. Unfortunaly there is a rightwinger who wants to be in charge who has changed his position on issues so many times just to pander to the electorate and become Prime Minister.
Is there anything else?
If l were you l would stick to trying to insult Alan Colmes types on other websites. Everybody here seems to just beat you up day after day.
Whoops!!
Sten disproval. Should actually read Stern Disapproval.
Sorry for the poor diction.
UK
Really....You really believe the crap you are shoveling??
"Let us not forget Thatcher, who was to Reagan what Lewinski was to Clinton. I'm sure her observations in the 80's met with your sten disproval.”
You really have the nerve to compare Thatcher to Lewinski, and you still want to be taken seriously???
A poster brings up a question many have asked, not says he is not sure about how true it is, and according to you he is pulling thins out of his arse and backing away at the same time. I am so glad you promote a health dialogue and want to hear what others think. You have to be kidding me.
You said Tony Blair support an illegal war?? First off, it was not illegal. That may be a great dem talking point, but it has no basis in fact or truth. Iraq kicked the inspectors out, and we had UN resolutions on the table to deal with it. We told Sadam what would happen, and he did not listen. I suppose your option would have been to say pretty pretty please.
If you have all those problems at home, I suggest you focus on them. As for your last remark, you did not come close to beating me up. You gave a lame, pathetic response...(Thatcher and Lewinski was the best you got...how sad). Why don’t you run off now and have some tea.
"You said Tony Blair support an illegal war?? First off, it was not illegal. That may be a great dem talking point, but it has no basis in fact or truth. Iraq kicked the inspectors out, and we had UN resolutions on the table to deal with it."
First of all Krusty the second Un resolution had not been enacted before the invasion, hence why people call the war ILLEGAL. This is why Blair is in the US not the UK. He knows that he could be arrested for war crimes. Your president may have opted out of the ICC but the UK have not. Why do you think he is doing so many "lecture tours"?
As to your other point:
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.
Weapons inspectors, shown here searching a test site in February, have been advised to leave Iraq.
By Suhaib Salem, Reuters
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons.
"Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday. U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours.
No one has yet given the order for the inspectors to begin pulling out, and they were working on Monday. Most of the teams' helicopters have left Iraq because their insurance was canceled, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said, and the personnel level was low because of a scheduled rotation home. IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the nuclear agency would wait for Security Council guidance later Monday before deciding whether to pull out its inspectors.
The teams, which returned to Iraq on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year absence, drew up contingency plans to evacuate even before their redeployment.
"A lot depends on the Iraqis," a senior U.N. inspector told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "If they let us use aircraft to get out, we could be gone in 48 hours or even less. If they won't let us fly out, we would have to drive to a border, and that could mean an eight-hour journey across hot desert. It would take longer, but we would get out."
Inspectors have experience in getting out of Iraq in a hurry: In December 1998, they pulled out on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes amid allegations that Baghdad was not cooperating with the teams.
There have been some concerns that the Iraqis might hold the inspectors as human shields in case of a conflict. But Iraq's foreign minister appeared to play down those fears in a live television interview on the al-Arabiya Arabic satellite channel Sunday night.
"The inspectors came by a decision of the Security Council, which decides on their departure," Naji Sabri said.
ElBaradei told the nuclear agency's 35-nation governing board Monday that he was worried about the safety of the teams, yet still held out hope that war could be averted.
"Naturally the safety of our staff remains our primary consideration at this difficult time," he said. "I earnestly hope — even at this late hour — that a peaceful resolution of the issue can be achieved, and that the world can be spared a war."
ElBaradei, who has been monitoring the situation day to day, also confirmed that he and Blix had received an invitation from Baghdad
"to visit Iraq with a view toward accelerating the implementation of our respective mandates." He did not say whether he or Blix had accepted.
"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that inspectors still have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein has revived his nuclear program.
But with the United States, Britain and Spain making clear that
Monday would be the final day for diplomatic efforts to avert a
conflict, it appeared that the inspectors were running out of time
and could begin withdrawing at any moment.
In other signs that war could be imminent, the U.S. State Department on Sunday night ordered nonessential personnel and all family members to leave Israel, Kuwait and Syria in a precautionary move.
Germany closed its embassy in Baghdad on Monday after calling on its citizens to leave Iraq "immediately," and Britain advised all its citizens except diplomatic staff to leave Kuwait as soon as possible, citing a potential threat from war in neighboring Iraq.
That was from the AP before the war. Did you notice the important bit:
"Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad"
You right wingers like to change reality don't you Krusty? The truth is Saddam was neutered. He was hemmed in on three sides and had a no fly zone in place. Where did l get that piece of info? Condelezza Rice, a few months before the illegal invasion. As for your veiw of thatcher? Well l shouldn't be surprised that you know nothing of the world outside your shores. Maybe if you left them once in a while you may see things that challenge. Ah... don't bother. Shaking you from your world view may be too shocking for you.
Never have I seen some one take up so much space, and yet say nothing.
I am not sure which is funnier, your thoughts that Blair could be arrested as a war criminal, or your views on Thatcher. It does not surprise me however, that you mourn Sadam, the real war criminal, and vilify two great former leaders in your country.
You really are a dick Krusty.
Blair's actions may be lauded by you and by right wingers in the US but one of the main reasons why he is no longer prime minister is that he is a lying sack of excrement who took our country into an illegal war and reduced the respect we had around the world. This again is why he is spending so much time in the US and not over here. You may also have some glossy view of thatcher but l grew up here and remember the mess she and her government left behind with their boom and bust economic policies. There are still large parts of the North of England that have not recovered after being decimated by her decisions. Why don't you try and find out a bit more about her and what she did, like why she was called "thatcher, thatcher, the milk snatcher" in the 70's. Or her racist and inflammetory police policies which lead to the race riots of the 80's and police actions during the miners strike? Lipstick on a pig may be the in phrase at the moment but with thatcher all you are doing is putting gold plate on a turd.
That was a major league smackdown that you just delivered, UK. Well done. It was beautiful to behold.
I particularly liked how POV again repeated to the reich wing lie that Sadam had kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, leaving Dubya' no other choice than to invade, when it was Bush himself who had forced them out. As faithful disciples of Geobels, they know that a lie, told often enough and loud enough, becomes accepted as the truth. And lies are all they really have, because reality long ago turned its back on them.
Again, nice job.
Thanks for the words MESCAL it's good to know that some Americans get it:
It's good to see that someone noticed the fact that l posted verbatim an AP story from before the illegal invasion which was the direct opposite of what both Bush and Blair said. There are millions of people, and l was one of them, who voted for and trusted Blair and couldn't believe it when he backed the invasion. He lost a lot of respect and backing and he knew it. Krusty has that rightwingers rose tinted view of other rightwing leaders who agree with them. Hell some over here even want to give thatcher a state funeral but there is rightly a lot of opposition.
Also this bit went over his head:
"BTW, things in the UK are not going great. We have a housing crisis due to the fact that mortgages were given to people who really couldn't afford them and now, due to the economic downturn, a lot of people will be losing their homes. Luckly in the US the government have decided to nationalise the two biggest mortgage lenders in the country because if they had collapsed then it would have sent shockwaves through the British housing markets concidering how much money UK banks have tied up with Fannie May and Freddie Mac. We also have high petrol prices at the pumps, people want our troops out of Iraq, Jobs are being exported overseas, and a very, VERY unpopular man in charge who people cannot wait to see the back of. Unfortunaly there is a rightwinger who wants to be in charge who has changed his position on issues so many times just to pander to the electorate and become Prime Minister."
If you change all the references from UK to US and change Prime Minister to President you see a mirror of what is happening with you guys but at a slightly lesser scale. The recession is global and it has been pointed out that when the US has a cold we tend to sneeze. There is a lot of UK banking money tied up in the US so having intelligent people back in charge of it is a good thing for both our countries as far as i'm concerned. It would also make me feel better about my holiday to Red Bank, New Jersey next year.
UK
You really showed me. You slander great leaders on both sides of the ocean…I am sorry, I meant pond, throw in all kind of righteous indignation, and then act like you scored points. Apparently there is no difference between liberals here and liberals there. Fact of the matter is, Sadam had many chances to avoid war, and choose not to. Blair joined other leaders on the world stage, and did what had to be done. How soon your forget the thousands if not millions of people Sadam killed and tortured, many of which he had video taped for his own pleasure. Where is your disapproval for his actions?? That’s right, after you compare Thatcher to a sexual encounter with an intern, and accuse Bush and Blair of being criminals, apparently you have no more indignation left.
"Fact of the matter is, Sadam had many chances to avoid war, and choose not to."--POV
Like what? Allow weapons inspectors in? Release thousands of pages of documentation on his weapons programs? He did all of that. Remember? How exactly would Saddam prove he didn't have something we now know he didn't have? Just face it. The Bush Administration was setting things up so that war was absolutely unavoidable. Nearly everyone involved concedes that at this point.
My god l don't know where to start with you, l really don't!! I'm going to try anyway (obviously hope over experience).
You do know that regieme change is actually illegal under international law don't you? That is what happened in Iraq. Do you think that if the US didn't have the largest amount of weapons and the influence it did people would have been in agreement with the invasion? Saddam (notice how the spelling is correct?) did try to avoid war. THAT IS WHY THE INSPECTORS WERE THERE. The fact he actually HAD NO WEAPONS ANYWAY was a moot point at that time, the bottle of katnip Colin Powell waved at the UN not withstanding.I know the bush administration try to write their own reality but in the fact based world the rest of us know this is true. Did l disagree with Saddam's actions? Yes, of course l did. I like millions of were disgusted when he used the chemical weapons WE SUPPLIED HIM on not only the Iranians but on the Kurds. Were you there as part of the protests when he was doing this in the 80's? Were you outside the Iraqi embassy protesting about western firms supplying him with the equiptment to try to build his "Supergun"? Or were you cheering along because at the time the enemy of my enemy is my friend? You go on and on about Saddam but where is YOUR indignation or calls for actions against Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir, or Lieutenant General Idriss Déby Itno, or Joseph Kabila? Have you even heard of the Janjaweed? What about the dictatorship in Nepal? In a modern day update of Godwin's Law you jump the shark in your arguement and accuse those who rightly question an illegal invasion of actually supporting the person they probably, and in my case definately, know more about than you do.
You also accuse me of slandering great leaders. Good god man!! Try opening a history book NOT WRITTEN IN THE US. There are many things done by the thatcher government which cause pain, heartache and anger, scars that will not heal quickly by people who will NEVER forgive let alone forget. Just because you have her up on a pedestal because she supported the repubican deity Reagan has blinded you to other things like her support of the dictator Pinochet in Chile and her stident shrill objections to Sanctions in South Africa and the Anti-Apartheid movement. You did know she was for keeping the black majority in South Africa as the underclass, did'nt you? I bet you don't even know who the British PM was during Vietnam. Did you know that relations between the UK and US were at it's worst because he refused to join in with the folly? I'm not slandering thatcher, blair or even bush. I'm stating things that, even though they give you "the vapours" are true about more than one leader in the world. Are you REALLY trying to say the war criminal arguement has not been said in the US, just on the torture arguement alone? I'm definately not slandering thatcher because the history of what she has done has already been written. Is that what is shaking you? That in years to come, no matter what has been said by bush, blair, limbaugh, hannity, o'reilly et al, historians will actually write the facts? It's just a pity you're going to be too scared to read it as it shatters your illusions.
I was just in Red Bank in January and February. Nice town. The rest of Jersey - not so much.
There really aren't that many idiots here like POV. They are very loud and obnoxious, so they get noticed. It sometimes seems like there are a lot of them because of that.
Most Americans are decent hard-working people that often are too consumed in their own affairs to even notice the terrible things that are being done by our government in our names.
"Iraq kicked the inspectors out"--POV
Thank you, UK for pointing out the outright lie by POV. It has been done too many times to count on this site to countless rightwing posters who seem only to remember the Limbaugh (fake) version of events.
Aren't we always being told by one of our elders that the world is a big scary place and we need him to win so he can keep us all warm and cozy in this dangerous and treacherous world?
Won't his and Ms. Moose war mongering eventually engulf our European neighbors in the firestorm. Won't some of our brothers and sisters across the pond be welcome in the Rapture?
Not that UK plans to go airborne. I hope he stays right where with the rest of us sinners.
"We have enough idiot opinions here, we sure dont need to import any!"
yours (and talk radio's) included.
Why are you censoring free speech?David Schuster - " the republicans do a great job controlling the news " .
PEOPLE WAKE UP, A Democracy can not survive without an informed people and this latest example of appalling so called news , illustrates how BAD the news really is and when you think it cant get any worst, it does .
CBS/Couric mouth pieces of the Council on Foreign Relations SHOULD have played the ENTIRE clip of Obama's speech , indicating he never even inferred he was talking about Palin . END of story, but they didn't .
People CBS is attacking Obama ( im no great fan)but facts are facts . Chip Reed falsely claimed BOTH PARTIES ARE TAKING THE LOW ROAD " A FLAT OUT LIE . DEAN REYNOLDS of cbs CLAIMS ' He opened up himself for attack , with a flip comment " never mentioned it is commonly used , even by cheney.
So it's blame the victim and when the victim responds , HE IS" elevating the issue" , even though it still would be a major issue for the misinformation media and being disingenuous seems to be the M.O. because If Obama didn't respond , they say he's "not tough enough " CBS blaming obama for opening up an attack and both sides are taking the low road , the old both sides are doing it , when the left is the victim of smears , shows they are willing to outright lie , mislead and fabricate a story to get their guy into office .
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin gets to her office by entering a false grandfather clock in the foyer, and sliding down a brass pole, changing into her governors pantsuit during the two story drop. Once in her office, where her computer occupies one entire wall, it's blinking lights reflecting off the mirror-like paint of her turbine-powered governor's suburban parked nearby, she awaits to respond to any word of emergencies.
Earns spare change as a free range polar bear manicurist.
Is responsible for eliminating the illegal immigrant terrorist penguin population in Alaska.
Well known moose gooser.
Reincarnated Lemurian Hedge fund manager.
Matt Drudge started this fiasco. I could not believe ABC News headlined the Evening News with this silly story! Un-believable! And then CNN went on and on with it, too. Ridiculous.
Nevertheless, I agree with Ari Fletcher who said it was the *audience* at the Obama event which is the real culprit. They started laughing thinking that Obama was talking about Palin as if she were a pig.
The Republicans then falsely assumed that because the audience perceived it as an attack on Palin, and Obama didn't object to their interpretation, it was an intended slight.
Obama himself did not laugh with them, so it's unfair to accuse him of attacking Palin. However, my question is: Why, if he heard the laughing like everyone else, did he not say something to diffuse the situation immediately?
He must have known that the audience was laughing because they thought he was dissing Palin. It's not like it's a very funny comment unless it's about her.
Nevertheless, I agree with Ari Fletcher who said it was the *audience* at the Obama event which is the real culprit. They started laughing thinking that Obama was talking about Palin as if she were a pig.
That is obviously the perception of someone without much introspection. And as much as I despise having to do this for someone who I assume is an adult, I'm going to try to explain it.
Let's look at the possibilities that would make the audience laugh at the "pig with lipstick" comment.
1. The minds eye picturing a pig with lipstick on paints a humorous picture.
2. Those who remember McCain's use of the phrase when criticizing Hillary's health care plan would find it ironic and humorous that it was turned around and used on him.
3. They remembered Palins lipstick comment, and even though they knew Obama wasn't referencing that, they found the unintended commonality funny.
4. They thought that it was funny that Obama was referring to Palin as just the lipstick on McCain's pig of a platform.
5. They thought that it was funny that Obama was referring to Palin as a pig.
Out of all of those statements, which one requires a false interpretation of Obama's words?
Exactly. Number 5. And yet you and Fleischer and who knows how many others find Number 5 the easiest to believe. I can only attribute that to ignorance, misinterpretation, or willful partisan misrepresentation. Knowing which caused YOU to come to such a misguided conclusion could help you do a little pre-emptive introspection next time and save us all a lot of wasted space.