Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe White House press corps, taking a break from its usual stenography duties, actually roused itself to ask truth-impaired spokesman Scott McClellan some tough questions about Dick Cheney. Unfortunately, while it was good to see a few reporters rise from their bended knees, they were asking the wrong questions about the wrong issue.
What got the press corps all hot and bothered was the fact that Cheney and his aides kept details about the vice president shooting a man secret for the better part of 24 hours, and then slipped the story to a local paper in the city nearest the Texas dude ranch where the incident took place.
Most of Monday's 41-minute-long White House press briefing was taken up with questions about the gun-slinger-in-chief's penchant for secrecy and the bloody details of the shot Cheney's hunting buddy took to the face. But what was especially clear was that the members of the press corps do not like to get scooped on the story of a vice presidential shooting sprees by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.
McClellan was peppered with pointed questions and sharp asides from the likes of NBC reporter David Gregory, who grumbled about the fact that: "the vice president of the United States shoots a man, and he feels that it's appropriate for a ranch owner who witnessed this to the local Corpus Christi newspaper, not the White House press corps at large or notify the public in a national way."
When Gregory accused McClellan of "ducking and weaving," rather than responding frankly to the questions he is paid by the taxpayers of the United States to answer, the press secretary suggested the NBC reporter was grandstanding.
An angry Gregory retorted, "Don't accuse me of trying to pose to the cameras. Don't be a jerk to me personally when I'm asking you a serious question.''
McClellan told Gregory not to yell. The reporter then pointed to the press secretary's lectern and shouted, "If you want to use that podium to try to take shots at me personally, which I don't appreciate, then I will raise my voice, because that's wrong.''
The pair sputtered back and forth until, finally, McClellan said, "I'm sorry you're getting all riled up about," to which Gregory replied: "I am riled up, because you're not answering the question."
More power to Gregory, and to several other members of the usually somnambulant White House press corps, for trying to get McClellan to answer a few questions about the misdeeds of the most powerful vice president in American history.
The only frustrating thing is that Gregory and his compatriots were all excited about the secretive handling of details regarding a hunting accident that – while troubling – can hardly be described as the most serious matter of concern with regard to Cheney.
To be sure, a trigger-happy vice president makes for good feature stories – not to mention good comedy. But where were the demands for answers, where was the cries for accountability, where were the shows of righteous indignation last week, when it was revealed by the National Journal that Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, had told a federal grand jury he was "authorized" by Cheney and other White House "superiors" to disclose classified information to journalists as part of a plot to defend the Bush administration's manipulation of prewar intelligence to make the "case" for going to war with Iraq.
In the scheme of things, the many unanswered questions about whether the vice president of the United States engaged in a conspiracy to deceive Congress and the American people about reasons for entering a war that has now killed more than 2,200 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would seem to be a bigger deal than the same vice president's involvement in a hunting accident.
True, it would be foolish to assume that Scott McClellan would be any more forthcoming about the administration's manipulation of pre-war intelligence -- and evidence of Cheney's involvement in efforts to attack those who exposed that manipulation – than he has been about the manipulation of information regarding the vice president's gunplay.
But if the press corps is going to rise from its slumber when it comes to Dick Cheney's secrecy and chicanery, would it make sense to get excited about the Constitutional crisis – as opposed to the veep's itchy trigger finger?
John Nichols' book, The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney. The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney includes an interview with Joseph Wilson and details the inner workings of the vice president's office at the time of the Plame-Wilson leak.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I am sure that when all the facts come to light, we will discover that this was planned months ago when Libby was first indicted. First, bide your time; stay low. Second, wait for Libby (that simpering fool) to crack under the slightest bit of pressure. Third, shoot a rich geezer who is politically well-connected but unknown outside of Texas.
There. Libby forgotten as we all have a few laughs over an old man's shot-ridden face. The perfect distraction.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:00am
It's the damn hunting accident that has the hackles of the media up. Not the cumulative misdeeds, lies, and feculent behavior from the previous five years. Is it any wonder that this country is going to hell and a hand basket?
Intrepid Liberal Journal [intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com]
Posted by trebor007 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:23am
Dan rather, CNN, Editorial page af almost any paper you choose, Walter Cronkite, Peter jacobsen, 60 minutes cast excluding that one guy who gets it RIGHT, NPR, and on and on and on! These are all right - wing conservatives who dominate the news we all get, RIGHT? Talk about having your head in the sand! It's like saying the bible belt is overwhelmingly LIBERL! Absolute FREAKS!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 12:30am
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 12:30am
Dan rather, CNN, Editorial page af almost any paper you choose, Walter Cronkite, Peter jacobsen, 60 minutes cast excluding that one guy who gets it RIGHT, NPR, and on and on and on!
Who the fuck is Peter Jacobsen?
Damn Bush Boy. Your fearless vice leader trying to blow away an innocent hunter and then getting caught hiding the fact from the public has really made you unhinged
These are all right - wing conservatives who dominate the news we all get, RIGHT?
Two of those guys are retired. I have know idea who Peter Jacobsen is. CNN went tabloid. Editorial page of the Seattle Times is conservative as are most of the others accept the New York Times (one is the loneliest number) Haven't watched 60 minutes since the eighties and NPR is one (like the new york times) radio station swimming in a sea of conservative sleeze radio.
All in all I'd say conservatives dominate the news
Talk about having your head in the sand!
Let me introduce you all to my widdle fwend Bush Boy
It's like saying the bible belt is overwhelmingly LIBERL!
It's like saying we have a bible belt
Absolute FREAKS!
Yep, that is what's conservative and living in said "Bible Belt"
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 12:48am
This is an excellant article Mr. Nichols. It's great to see a journalist get pissed off at something, (kinda reminds me of some Democrats). But it's unbelievable, even unforgivable that the press is allowing an obviously, well,to me anyway, criminal republican government to just skate along on it's merry way. But, hope springs eternal.....
Posted by SG at 02/14/2006 @ 12:50am
Zero, your post about the bush propaganda machine was certainly interesting!! Not surprised though. And, anyone trying to slow that train down....well, good luck. If treason, having lied the nation into war, wiretapping without a warrant, etc.,etc. have essentially gone unchallenged, what makes us think 1.6 billion dollars for a propaganda machine will be any different?
Posted by SG at 02/14/2006 @ 01:03am
Will, here are the facts! The overwhelming majority of media ( print and television ) personel are democrats, denial won't change that! The overwhelming majority of churches in this country expouse right-wing beliefs and the personel and attendees of those churches follow suit! The overwhelming majority of educators especially college, ( because they couldn't make it in the REAL world ) are Dems! The overwhelming majority of talk radio hosts ( and I believe listeners ) are Republicans! Although these are facts, I can't wait to hear your spin on it! But notice, I'm not in denial about where republicans dominate, yet I'm about to see how much you are in denial about where your looney side dominates! Ladies and gentlemen, get ready for more proof of the mental disorder otherwise known as liberalism, Will is about to show you! What a FREAK!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 01:58am
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 01:58am
And of course you can document all your assertions right here on this blog in plain sight for all to see with something other than conclusions drawn by other practitioners of the hamsterland fantasy, can't you Mr."I don't decide until the investigations over" breath.
And I'm talking about verifiable numbers
Not republican trust me numbers
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:06am
Dan rather, CNN, Editorial page af almost any paper you choose, Walter Cronkite, Peter jacobsen, 60 minutes cast excluding that one guy who gets it RIGHT, NPR, and on and on and on! These are all right - wing conservatives who dominate the news we all get, RIGHT? Talk about having your head in the sand! It's like saying the bible belt is overwhelmingly LIBERL! Absolute FREAKS!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 12:30am |
Bush lips,
WIll C basically ran you through the shredder up above, but I will just spend a few moments kicking around your smelly carcass...
Have you ever considered structural and institutional relations when flapping your gums about the so-called liberal media? Of course, not you're a far right asshole and that might require more substantive thinking beyond your labeling and free market fantasies. Well, you might want to consider the private ownership and business part of the equation. It makes sense while considering the larger context, beyond a bunch of liberal reporters saying and writing whatever Moveon.org tells them to report, and then collecting a paycheck from the same company they just demonized in print.
Media has been consolidated over the past several decades to where just a relatively small number of corporations own almost all media outlets. For example, General Electric owns NBC, Disney owns CBS. Now these owners and investors from the powerful elites have very important agendas they want to advance, they might not be too happy to see their media outlets running investigative reports critical of their very own business interests, would they? And do you know how media, (let's say newspapers) make their money? By advertising, not by the price of the paper when you buy it. And advertisors have mutual interests connected with the corporate owners and investors running the companies. It's all one big, happy family of wealthy people sharing similiar interests. If you offend the advertisors, guess what happens? These underlying power sources who are the owners of the media, have great influence in defining what kind of news we see. Also, as part of our wonderful American style of capitalism, you know: bring in as much money now, damn the long term consequences--media outlets have been forced to cut costs, relying more on trash-like sensational reporting over investigative reporting. Also they place more emphasis on mere stenography of what the political officials declare, just essentially write what they give you in the press conference, or let the government provide you with fake propaganda news stories, like what the Bushies have been expanding on (Zero just posted something regarding this).
Not much room for decisions to be made by Green Peace-loving liberals wanting to go after large polluting corporations, is there? But, go on, keep trying to convice us that the media is dominated by some hoard of evil liberals free to attack the angelic republicans and their corporate saints at will.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 02:10am
So you are saying that Mary mapes and the rest of them have no actual say in what the media spews? You need counseling, bro'! You people are flat out insane! Why would these outlets then let both the FAKE Rather story and the FAKE Newsweek story run? Another conspiracy theory maybe? My god, please tell me what you freaks are taking? It needs to be BANNED for the safety of all AMERICANS!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 02:21am
Liberals infect occupations that allow them to be inept without threat of firing! This is the liberal bloodsucking way!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 02:23am
The overwhelming majority of churches in this country expouse right-wing beliefs and the personel and attendees of those churches follow suit! The overwhelming majority of educators especially college, ( because they couldn't make it in the REAL world
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 01:58am |
Bush Ass,
I already addressed your media BS, but tell me do all of these churches espouse: the Death Penalty, State-sponsored military aggression, tax cuts for the rich, drilling in the Artic Wildlife Refuge, K street lobbying practices, spying on Ameican citizens, etc.
And as for Liberals dominating academia, well, they just remain loyal to something higher and more culturally valid than MBA-style money chasing and whoring. The intellectual life over greed is nothing to be ashamed of.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 02:26am
Liberals infect occupations that allow them to be inept without threat of firing! This is the liberal bloodsucking way!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:23am |
Excuse me, but wasn't Dan Rather pushed out the door shortly after the National Guard story? Along with others who worked on the story? Yes, schmuck.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 02:29am
Liberals infect occupations that allow them to be inept without threat of firing! This is the liberal bloodsucking way!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:23am
And all those liberals you named above were fired or forced into retirement.
Bush Boy, is your Schtoopid ass really the best that evangelic conservatives have to send against us?
(Fellas, this war is almost won)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:40am
So you are saying that Mary mapes and the rest of them have no actual say in what the media spews? You need counseling, bro'! You people are flat out insane! Why would these outlets then let both the FAKE Rather story and the FAKE Newsweek story run? Another conspiracy theory maybe? My god, please tell me what you freaks are taking? It needs to be BANNED for the safety of all AMERICANS!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:21am
BUSH Sack,
Of course they have some say, but it is constrained and limited within the above mentioned parameters of corporate ownership. I realize that you think we are far left whackos, but consider that in the U.S., or what is left here, would be more center or even right, in most other industrialized countries. It is controversial to talk of public health care here, but everywhere else, they already have such as system. You guys describe Hillary as a screeching liberal, while almost no left writer here would agree with that assessment and would assign her moderate status.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 02:41am
Don't bother OUSTBUSH, Mr. Bush Man is lovin the kool-ade...hate, hate, hate..instigating and insulting. He probably thinks of himself as a uniter, not a divider. Probably a big Ann Coulter fan too.
Posted by SG at 02/14/2006 @ 02:42am
No, they don't all expouse the things you listed, but they do overwhelmingly vote republican! As far as tax cuts for the rich, if you look at the numbers all tax cuts were around the same percentage of taxes PAID ( a keyword you blind morons can't seem to see ) FOR ALL TAX BRACKETS! iT'S NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, IT'S EQUAL TAX CUT PERCENTAGES FOR TAXPAYERS, head in the sand blind man! Grasshopper say, liberal who cry wolf one to many time lose tooth, this we call true justice!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 02:43am
IT'S EQUAL TAX CUT PERCENTAGES FOR TAXPAYERS, head in the sand blind man!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:43am
Right...percentages. Well how about just equal tax cuts. Say everybody gets a thousand bucks back.
That's equal isn't it?
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:46am
fair too
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:46am
BUSH Shit,
you don't seem as arrogant tonight, are you worried about your fascist heroes? That Cheney shot some old lawyer instead of Libby or Fitzgerald getting you down?
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 02:46am
Rather was kicked out because he chose to report a false story! You don't believe in accountability?Listen to yourself, you are crazy! Forced into retirement because they BLATANTLY violated the rules or responsible journalism and their employers are in deep trouble because the public has seen through their left leaning smokescreen! Can you say, FOX news dominates? Why does Fox news dominate? They are relatively new comparably? You people need help!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 02:48am
Don't bother OUSTBUSH, Mr. Bush Man is lovin the kool-ade...hate, hate, hate..instigating and insulting. He probably thinks of himself as a uniter, not a divider. Probably a big Ann Coulter fan too.
Posted by SG 02/14/2006 @ 02:42am |
He gets so drunk on that stuff. I actually like BUSH MAN, despite his hateful, moronic ideas. He makes me laugh.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 02:52am
Rather was kicked out because he chose to report a false story!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:48am
But Bush boy, you just said this
Liberals infect occupations that allow them to be inept without threat of firing! This is the liberal bloodsucking way!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:23am
so I guess Dan Rather and the rest of them were a bunch of lying, sack of shit conservatives because they were fired (in stark contrast to your assertion above)
Further proof the media is mostly conservative sleeze merchants
Thanks Bush Boy!
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:53am
Will C, you have proved my point! You think that if you pay say 10,000 in taxes and I pay 1,000 in taxes that we should both get back 1,000! You are a bonafide marxist idiot! You get back a certain percentage of what you pay in, dickwad! That's fairness! So, if I decide to be a loser bloodsucking liberal and don't work, I shouldn't get anything back, but if I provide support for our economy and pay taxes I should get something back! Man, you people still don't understand that marxism is dead! Earn your own way, be a MAN, bitch!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 02:53am
He makes me laugh.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/14/2006 @ 02:52am
Here here
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:54am
It took a lot to fire Rather! But in making my point about protected profesiions, I was leaning towards that of Government and Education! Ward " little eichman" Churchill ring a bell! Or how about liberal judges that let child rapists off with probation? Get ready for the spin!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 02:56am
Will C, you have proved my point! You think that if you pay say 10,000 in taxes and I pay 1,000 in taxes that we should both get back 1,000!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:53am
Why thanks bush boy. Like you I think the guys who make all the money should pay all the taxes.
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:56am
Rather was kicked out because he chose to report a false story! You don't believe in accountability?Listen to yourself, you are crazy! Forced into retirement because they BLATANTLY violated the rules or responsible journalism and their employers are in deep trouble because the public has seen through their left leaning smokescreen! Can you say, FOX news dominates? Why does Fox news dominate? They are relatively new comparably? You people need help!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:48am
Would have been nice to have held Bush and crew to that standard. Took a chance on shady and false information. Fired!
Why Fox News? Same reason pornography dominates: lowest common denominator.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 02:58am
It took a lot to fire Rather! But in making my point about protected profesiions, I was leaning towards that of Government and Education! Ward " little eichman" Churchill ring a bell! Or how about liberal judges that let child rapists off with probation? Get ready for the spin!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:56am
so your comments above were for liberals, except the ones in the media
(round and round he goes, where he stops... nobody knows)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 02:59am
Will C, you have proved my point! You think that if you pay say 10,000 in taxes and I pay 1,000 in taxes that we should both get back 1,000! You are a bonafide marxist idiot! You get back a certain percentage of what you pay in, dickwad! That's fairness! So, if I decide to be a loser bloodsucking liberal and don't work, I shouldn't get anything back, but if I provide support for our economy and pay taxes I should get something back! Man, you people still don't understand that marxism is dead! Earn your own way, be a MAN, bitch!
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 02:53am |
I would venture to guess that you know nothing of Marx, have never read his work, and get your soundbites(and most of your education) from your typical right wing radio jockies.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 03:02am
Bush Man is in deep denial. The Republican party is in trouble, again. Making Liberals the enemy won't help. You speak of your opposition as if they were aliens. As if you somehow are entitled to treat those with whom you disagree as LESS than yourself. Just the way Limbaugh, Faux News, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, Vice Pres. Cheney and many others have tutored you to do. Republicans love to demonize. I have news for you sir, we are the majority now...those who DISapprove of the job bush is doing (read: not doing). We would HAVE to be blind not to see how terribly destructive this administration has been to this great nation. If you continue to support bush, you had better already be well off..otherwise you are supporting an administration that does NOT have your best interests at heart.
Posted by SG at 02/14/2006 @ 03:03am
I would venture to guess that you know nothing of Marx, have never read his work, and get your soundbites(and most of your education) from your typical right wing radio jockies.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/14/2006 @ 03:02am
YOu know... Marx. The guy with the fake mustasch and the cigar
He had four brothers... MARX!
:)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 03:04am
Posted by WILL C. 02/14/2006 @ 02:53am |
WILL, be careful not to spin him around too fast and hard, he's liable to start puking up some of that Kool Aid.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 03:05am
WILL, be careful not to spin him around too fast and hard, he's liable to start puking up some of that Kool Aid.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/14/2006 @ 03:05am
I know what you mean. It gets all thick and gloppy when its been mixing with the alfalfa pellets for a while
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 03:08am
I guess our widdle fwend bush boy went beddy bye
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 03:12am
I know what you mean. It gets all thick and gloppy when its been mixing with the alfalfa pellets for a while
Posted by WILL C. 02/14/2006 @ 03:08am |
That's an appropriate image: Bush Rodent Boy, choking on his pellets and spinning his hamster wheel. I like it.
Bush M, where are you? Leaving?
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 03:15am
OK I get it now! When one loses everything, he goes into denial and blames everyone but himself for his faults! So, you libs have lost everything, the American public is rejecting you, and so instead of looking in the mirror, you cast irrational blame and create falshoods in your mind ( like the media is conservative, oh...my...god! )! Go ahead, all I can do is try to enlighten you and bring you back to reality! I will also continue to monitor your actions because at this time, your demented thinking threatens my country! So, my bitches, be thankful that I take the time to even pay attention to the LOSERS ( you ) and try to bring them up from the depths of liberal sewage! It's my charitable and PATRIOTIC contribution!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 03:15am
Be vewy, vewy quiet..he's dweaming about liberals..oh my God, their everywhere!
Posted by SG at 02/14/2006 @ 03:15am
Yes OUSTBUSH, I'm leaving my mayo all over your MOM"S backside! It wasn't all that, trust me!
Posted by bush man at 02/14/2006 @ 03:17am
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
Posted by SG at 02/14/2006 @ 03:17am
I guess our widdle fwend bush boy went beddy bye
Posted by WILL C. 02/14/2006 @ 03:12am |
Yes, he seemed a bit subdued tonight, he's probably missing LIBZUK.
Well, rest up for the next night of fun with the ignorant hamsters. Goodnight Will.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 03:18am
Yes OUSTBUSH, I'm leaving my mayo all over your MOM"S backside! It wasn't all that, trust me!
Posted by BUSH MAN02/14/2006 @ 03:17am
Another aduterous anti-christain conservative admitting to an afair with someones mom
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 03:19am
Posted by BUSH MAN 02/14/2006 @ 03:15am
Everyone step back
He's gonna blow
(I wonder if that has anything to do with pole smoking)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 03:21am
Well, rest up for the next night of fun with the ignorant hamsters. Goodnight Will.
Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/14/2006 @ 03:18am |
Night dude
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 03:22am
LMAO. Haven't had the pleasure of chatting with ya'll before..goodnight.
Posted by SG at 02/14/2006 @ 03:22am
Night all
Bush Boy, please feel free to scream at your own echo
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 03:24am
And History will write:
Vice-President (ex-CEO of the actual largest administration supplier) wounds a fellow Republican in a hunting friendly fire accident. Speculations turned around the fact he covered the affair as the wounded (as most of the Vice-Presidents's friends), are suspected of corruption.
sounds like a banana Republic soap
Posted by areyouok at 02/14/2006 @ 03:26am
Interesting article from Mr Nichols.....
given that his fellow editor Katrina vanden Heuval is doing EXACTLY what he's criticizing "the Media" for....concentrating on a hunting accident and not Scooter Libby.
or does he READ Ms vanden Heuval?!!?!???
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2006 @ 06:56am
RESE
Do you have any content linking the cartoons issue with this conspiration ?
Posted by areyouok at 02/14/2006 @ 07:00am
RESE
Furthermore, the Danish Imam, Abu Laban, also promoted the issue so as to ensure a "clash of civilizations" scope, some information on him confirms his links to a Saudi group of conspirators in line with Bin laden. So the picture fits.
Besides, the riots in France, created by Interior Minister Sarkozy (a known conspirator) are in the same line: influancing the EU public opinion towards supporting the cruzade.
Posted by areyouok at 02/14/2006 @ 07:37am
MASK 02/14/2006 @ 06:56am
I see what you're saying, but you've got to admit it's kind of a feast we've got here. Cheney shoots without looking, wounds his own man. The perfect microcosm of the messes he's made. So many angles to cover, so little time in the whirlwind of the news cycle.
Posted by MyParadigm at 02/14/2006 @ 07:48am
BUSHMAN:
You said:
As far as tax cuts for the rich, if you look at the numbers all tax cuts were around the same percentage of taxes PAID ( a keyword you blind morons can't seem to see ) FOR ALL TAX BRACKETS! iT'S NOT TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, IT'S EQUAL TAX CUT PERCENTAGES FOR TAXPAYERS, head in the sand blind man! Grasshopper say, liberal who cry wolf one to many time lose tooth, this we call true justice!
My response:
First off, I don't know where you got your numbers, but it certainly isn't the GAO, or the IRS. Had you actually checked with those sources, which are considered to be apolitical, you would know how false your claims are.
Another issue to bear in mind is that there are preferential tax treatments for precisely the types of income that the generally considered "wealthy" have: real estate income, capital gains, stock dividends, inheritance. Were you actually being honest with yourself or anyone else, you would realize that our tax system is highly skewed toward the benefit of the extremely wealthy.
For example:
Let us say that someone of considerable means dies. Let's say that for this example, the person who dies has $20mil in total estate assets, in assorted asset classes. Furthermore, let us say that this property is not liquidated prior to death, but is instead passed on to the next generation. When this property is passed on, there are no taxes on capital gains, because upon the decedence of the prior generation, the assets passed on to the next generation receieve a new cost basis, meaning that if the asset were to be sold by the new generation (regardless of asset class), the gain consideration is based upon the date of demise of the prior generation, not the value of the asset at initial purchase.
Add to this the fact that stocks which pay dividends are treated in a highly discriminatory way (dividends taxable only up to 15%, regardless of income bracket), and real estate is the most highly preferentially taxed asset class in existence, you should get a considerably different understanding of the tax code and its regressiveness. And when you consider that well over 90% of the wealth passed on by households over $5mil is in the form of either real estate or stocks/bonds, this should erase any belief that our tax code is fair in any sense.
The fact of the matter is, the aggregate tax rate for the rich in this country is considerably lower than that of the middle and lower income levels.
For the sake of this discussion, I consider middle class to include people earning up to $500k per annum.
Take my best friend's father, for example, who is the department head of the pathology department at a MAJOR research university. He makes in the neighborhood of $350k per annum. Not only is he subject to regular income tax, he also falls into the AMT code (alternative minimum tax), which was originally meant to target exceptional personal incomes. He ends up clearing, after taxes, about $150k per annum. That is, approximately, a nominal tax rate of 57.2%.
Take someone who works at a 9-5 job, making middle class wages. In this instance, our subject's sole income is from wages, as his wife stays home with the children. His total gross income per annum is $58k. This person will end up paying $9857 in income taxes, and $3682 in FICA taxes. That is an aggregate tax rate of approximately 23%.
Consider that the less EARNED income someone makes, the MORE preferential their tax treatment. For example:
Let us say that the person who inherited the $10mil from the original example has no job, but simply lives off the income from his inheritance. If he holds all the wealth in triple tax-free municipal bonds, he pays $0 in tax. That's NO TAX.
If he holds all his wealth in dividend-paying stocks, he will pay 15% (1099) dividend tax. That means that if those stocks pay a 2% dividend per annum, he will pay a grand total of $30,000 in taxes.
Someone who holds their wealth in real estate may end up paying ONLY property taxes (or not even those, if he is well-connected politically, and manages to get a property tax abatement, which happens quite often).
While I'm sure you will say that I orchestrated the examples, I think anyone who actually looks at them will show that I just picked numbers off the top of my head. I simply wanted to illustrate how the tax code treats random tax payers.
The bottom line is, the tax code is highly discriminatory against the middle and low classes for the benefit of the wealthy.
I often hear the retort that "no poor man ever gave me a job". Allow me to respond in this way. First off, over 50% of all jobs in this country are with companies with less than 100 employees. In fact, nearly 3/4's of all US businesses have no payroll whatsoever. So the claim that poor men don't create jobs is a farce. I know tons of "working poor" business owners who literally work month to month on the verge of bankruptcy, even though they have burgenoning business prospects.
Secondly, we have gotten away from the concept of "value-added" labor. No longer do we consider the labor that goes into a particular job being of any particular value. We have instead ascribed value to the bosses and owners who run the business. While I would agree that there is value there, that firm management is important, honestly, without the employees working, there would be no value. The reason I make this point is not to downgrade the value of management, but to deny the devaluing of labor (middle- or lower-class employee labor).
You obviously do not understand our tax code. If you did, you would realize how wrong you truly are.
Posted by jorcheim at 02/14/2006 @ 08:18am
good work Jorchy
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2006 @ 08:28am
.
(I answered you this morning in the now superseded Dick Cheney thread. The following is part of my reply.)
That is embarrassing just to read. The shame of concocting such flimflam should be punishment enough.
The Baath was nationalist and socialist, a military dictatorship. It ruled by lawless terror and cruelty and demagogy. Its ideology was anti-democratic and pan-Arab (as the Nazis were pan-Germanic). Saddam posed as the Arab's champion against an aggressive Zionist-American cancer threatening Islam's heartland, in the way Hitler was Christian Europe's bulwark against a Jewish-Soviet threat. (For which reason Saddam began building mosques and Hitler posed as a Christian knight).
You grudgingly agreed with that fascist parallel. But that, you say, doesn't cover the insurgency.
What is the insurgency? It is the remnant of those Baathists. They are supported by foreign fanatics who likewise detest democracy and free speech, the US and Jews, and also have a pan-Arab ideal. Furthermore, even in its methodology the insurgency is wholly Baathist, attempting to cow Iraqis with unspeakable cruelty. Not fascist, eh?
I have no gripe against people who judged tackling Saddam not in the US interest. This is about those who feared it was in the US interest, who reflexively oppose what advantages America: because they consider the US the enemy. They despise its capitalist economy, its power structure, its wealth, its military might, its pre dominance in the world, and not least, its support of Israel. They are for whatever goes against America, what undermines her. They believe the PNAC wicked because it wants the US to prevail in the new century. Thus they sided with Saddam. They saw him as a strong opponent of the US (and Israel). They saw him making a monkey of the US. They now support the insurgency because the failure of a democratic Iraq would set back America's power position in the world.
Right, and you asked me to explain why I called you a fake.
.
Posted by nacl at 02/14/2006 @ 08:30am
RESE finally came clean with a "source" that is honest about its content in its address....
Chertoff covered up [paranoiamagazine.com]
Posted by RESE 02/14/2006 @ 06:05am | ignore this person
LOL!
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2006 @ 08:54am
Mask:
Nice to see that you are closely reading all of Rese's postings.
Let's see how hard you are still laughing when the entire truth comes out.
You've got some crow in your future.
Posted by plunger at 02/14/2006 @ 09:19am
"Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
Posted by plunger at 02/14/2006 @ 09:21am
One or both of the following are likely to be true:
1. Cheney had been drinking.
The things that point to this include the fact that he was not interviewed until the following morning - by design - with the assistance of the Secret Service...which is a form of Obstruction of justice if they were keeping the Sheriff's office from ascertaining Cheney's blood alchohol level ASAP - like ANY OTHER CITIZEN.
Cheney did not get on the phone himself that evening with the White House. That's odd. Was his speech impaired?
2. Cheney wanted to keep the incident secret.
It occured on private land and he knew that the story would be a nightmare at this time given the Scooter Libby revelations. He hoped that the good old boy network in Texas would keep it all quiet. If he was drunk, he might have thought he could pull this off.
The Secret Service detail knows the entire truth. They ran interference to prevent the police from getting to Cheney that night. There is not any proof that cheney or his detail made any effort to notify the police. The cops likely learned of it when the hospital informed them, as they are obligated to do.
So, pick your poison...but something smells.
It's Saturday afternoon on a ranch in Texas. How many cocktails were consumed before they headed out at 5:00 to drop a couple birds?
This has to be the reason for all that transpired. Cheney is likely a good hunter who practices gun safety and is well schooled in the ways of hunting.
Alchohol explains all that transpired.
Cheney, once again proves, that he is in fact ABOVE THE LAW.
Posted by plunger at 02/14/2006 @ 09:30am
You know, PLUNGER...
I'm sure that Bush, Cheney, "the Cabal", the "Zionist bankers", and the "Illuminati" are all living in mortal dread of....
www.paranoiamagazine.com!
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2006 @ 10:21am
"Media's Aim Misses Real Cheney Misdeeds"
Nichols,
This is an excellent article. Thanks for using a rifle to hit the target rather than a shotgun.
Posted by seattlescribe at 02/14/2006 @ 11:42am
jorcheim, great post! we will all benefit from it except-bushman to whom it was addressed. unless it is simple lies spewed from the pigs rush or ann(libzsuks), bushman cannot comprehend it.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 11:51am
plunger, great point about the secret service and the sherriff's blood alcohol test. there are bigger fish to fry but this issue is important too. maybe the average american can wrap their video game minds around the fact that anyone else would have to take a blood alcohol test and submit to the sherriff's investigation but not above-the-law cheney.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 11:54am
cheney gets 24 hours to sober up and get rid of the evidence.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 11:56am
mask, just because katrina addresses it, does not mean she is concentrating on it. and it should be mentioned, don't you think? the editor's cut blog of this site addresses the great halliburton rip-off, as well as other war-profiteers. don't you like to lump the "halliburton conspiracy theory" in with the alien and jfk conspiracies? isn't that you?
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 12:05pm
rese, why don't you say anything of your own? why don't you put your interpretation or some of your own thoughts?
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 12:08pm
all of our media speakers were trained by right wing think tanks. ok, i'm not a republican so i'll say, most of our media speakers were trained by right wing think tanks. their big mistake was to give these people a pretty well rounded education. they are able to think.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 12:16pm
zero, what is the royalty plan? i haven't heard of this.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 12:20pm
NACL,
I am intriqued. You have posted your point of view. I have responded. We exchanged ideas, then insults, then vulgarities. Then I ignored you for a while.
But this just amazes me. I have to ask.
Sure, we have diametricaly opposed points of view, but this seems especially askew. You said:
"I have no gripe about people who judged tackiling saddam not in the US interest"....(So far so good.) You continue:
"This is about those who feared it was in the US interest, who refexivly oppose what advantages America: because they consider the US the enemy." "They are for whatever goes against America, what undermines her."
Do you actually know anybody who has actually stated that? Or is this just your perception of these people?
I personally, don't know ANYBODY who feels this way. I am sure they exsist. And, I would imagine, considering your viewpoint, that you have met someone who believes this. But, we are talking about a TINY minority here.
EVERYBODY, I know, is either for the war or against it. Some are for withdrawl some are not etc. But nobody I have EVER met is anti-America or pro saddam.
I would posit that 99% of all Americans are pro American/anti saddam.
Where do you get this...well...warped point of view?
Do you really believe this?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:27pm
what is salient about the story is this: cheney, or his enourage, delayed a police inquiry of the event. simply another example of the *above-the-law* mentality of this v.p. and the administration generally.
Posted by dabar at 02/14/2006 @ 12:27pm
"They now support the insurgency because the failure of a democratic Iraq would set back Americas power position in the world"
NO. They oppose the bush adminstration, because they are "setting back Americas power position in the world"
There is a HUGE difference.
Plus, are we expected to believe, (Or value your viewpoint, if it is true.) that you'd support American invasion of any country w/o proteset?!?!? Any nation? Any administration. Even if hillary invaded? How unAmerican. Are you a citizen(sp?) or a pawn?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:41pm
zero, i enjoy all of the fights all of the discussions all of the meandering directions of every thread. if it weren't for people like you who contribute valuable information and view points, i'd look elsewhere. a lot of the fights make me laugh. that is priceless.
as for what we are planning for hamas, concentration camps wouldn't surprise me. i think we should do more good things for the middle east. we have been ignorant, rude and disrespectful. we have manipulated things for our benefit, at least back to the 50's. our administration sounds like a third-grader on a playground in any message it has sent to the middle-east. we have made the world sick to it's stomach when it looks at us.
the propoganda, of course. that's how we get all these uneducated brain-washed trolls that everyone fights here. some of us have bullshit meters though. like you, for instance.
the oil royalties, once again, doesn't surprise me. they are also giving money to all kinds of corporations for future damage they might do to the environment. they are giving them money in many ways. they're so creative that way. but to the middle east, their creativity is limited to "be like us or we're going to bomb you" and "we're gonna smoke ya outta your holes. we're takin you outta bisness."
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 12:41pm
Zero, have been ignoring him for weeks too. Just caught that here at work. Had to ask.
Probably pointless, but it does explain alot.
I greatly appreciate your posts. Sometimes this shit just boggles my mind. I am done with NACL, but I actually hope to read whatever he replies to that with.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:44pm
Also, you are not drowned out by NACL and his ilk. I read your posts...sometimes i've quoted you.
Lack of response is tantamount to agreement. Keep posting.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:47pm
the fact that cheney blantantly avoided a bac test, avoided the sherriff's investigation, publicly once again proclaimed that bushco. is above the law...is important too. maybe it's the type of scandal that does get the hillbilly revering public's attention. vp shoots a man in the face while drunk but doesn't have to deal with the police.
Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2006 @ 12:48pm
Nice bumper sticker: I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy.
Posted by Len Mosse at 02/14/2006 @ 1:40pm
Len,
You do realize that over half of the American population did not exist during the Chappaquiddick incident. Suggestions for other material for bumper stickers: the Paris Student Revolts, Tommie Smith at the Mexico City Olympics, the deaths of RFK or MLK, Abbey Road, The Graduate, Get Smart, The Corvair.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 1:58pm
Nice bumper sticker: I would rather hunt with Dick Cheney than ride with Ted Kennedy.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/14/2006 @ 1:40pm
True, little dick does has his own private doctor follwing him wherever he goes.
(and all the bridges he's chaufered across have guard rails now)
Posted by Will C. at 02/14/2006 @ 2:12pm
TJ----All the examples you gave are either not with us anymore or not currently serving in the U.S. Federal Government. Also if half the population doesn't know about Chappaquiddick don't you think The Nation has a responsibility to give them a brief history lesson? Especially those who are so outraged that Cheney waited 24 hours before reporting it to the media.
Posted by Len Mosse at 02/14/2006 @ 2:36pm
Bush Administration Details $1B Land Sales
By MATTHEW DALY The Associated Press Friday, February 10, 2006; 6:53 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration on Friday detailed its proposal to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and other public land to help pay for rural schools in 41 states.
The land sales, ranging from less than an acre to more than 1,000 acres, could total more than $1 billion and would be the largest sale of forest land in decades.
Zero, and all:
I saw this in the Washington Post, friday. Apparently our government is intent on selling off our public lands because we are too much in the poor house to provide funds for some rural schools. What's next, auctioning off White House paintings on ebay? This sounds like something written in the Onion. I hate these MFs!
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 3:08pm
Also if half the population doesn't know about Chappaquiddick don't you think The Nation has a responsibility to give them a brief history lesson? Especially those who are so outraged that Cheney waited 24 hours before reporting it to the media.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 02/14/2006 @ 2:36pm
Len,
Reread my post. Didn't say "know"; said "did not exist during". I'll translate: this is OLD news that you bring up again and again and again (Hell, I was only three). Could you point to something that has happened in, say, the last 30 years? Might at least have a shot at relevancy. My list was a humorous attempt--though I realize a winger with humor is as common as a DC lobbyist with an ethical center--to point out the lack of relevance your Teddy obsession has on...well, anything.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 3:38pm
Well said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/we-are-all-harry-whitting_b_1 5649.html
He's back in the ICU. Worse, there's no reason that other shot can't now migrate into additional internal organs.
Does this mean ix-nay on the jokes, Scottie?
Now that the White House press corps has learned firsthand what Pat Leahy must have felt like to get the full Cheney treatment, Harry Whittington's predicament threatens to become a metaphor of what's happened to America under Bush/Cheney. Profound injury has been inflicted on us. The damage could worsen at any moment. And the only response from those responsible is silence, arrogance and misdirection. With their short-lived comedy offensive in disarray, how long do you think it will be before they return to tried-and-true 9/11 fearmongering?
Posted by Bushfools at 02/14/2006 @ 3:59pm
Yes, it's certainly interesting how events in the life of Black America, for example, are yesterday's news, but Chappaquiddick continues to be bandied about as though it were hot off the press. For some reason, the right's obsession with shutting down Edward Kennedy- which has always mystified me, as he's not exactly a threat to the system- outweighs any discussion of topics like, for example, where Bush Sr. was when William Casey was cutting deals for the United States government that he was not authorized to make in the fall of 1980. The right is always ready to pull out the charges of treason when it benefits their cause, but not so good at taking responsibility for their own bloody treacheries.
Posted by bkarloff at 02/14/2006 @ 4:00pm
Yes, it's certainly interesting how events in the life of Black America, for example, are yesterday's news, but Chappaquiddick continues to be bandied about as though it were hot off the press. For some reason, the right's obsession with shutting down Edward Kennedy- which has always mystified me, as he's not exactly a threat to the system- outweighs any discussion of topics like, for example, where Bush Sr. was when William Casey was cutting deals for the United States government that he was not authorized to make in the fall of 1980. The right is always ready to pull out the charges of treason when it benefits their cause, but not so good at taking responsibility for their own bloody treacheries.
Posted by BKARLOFF 02/14/2006 @ 4:00pm |
Exellent observations. When I pan across the democratic party over the past several decades, I see very little beyond confusion, inconsistency and craven opportunism, with the rare exception of say, Ted Kennedy. Though, far from perfect, he has remained a stable player for the older democratic principles: standing up more for the little guy, and not afraid to speak out against the republican sociopaths. The conservatives loathe his existence. What a traitor to their class, where a wealthy and privileged white guy dares oppose institionalized wealth and power; instead, choosing to serve the larger whole.
Posted by Oustbush at 02/14/2006 @ 4:39pm
the reason the Tories keep harping on Clinton and Ted Kennedy is that they've got NOTHING, Ted Kennedy paid a high price for his accident, the presidency. since then he has conducted himself honorably and made a ccontribution with his decades long service in the senate. is there a Tory senator who has served as long, as honorably, and of his stature? show him to me.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/14/2006 @ 5:53pm
Zero,
Regarding the Oil Royalty Relief fiasco, why isn't your beef with Congress that passed this legislation at Clinton's request in the 90's? It seems that the left here is always going on about the rule of law and that it is Congress that makes the laws. Why aren't you focusing on getting Congress to repeal or change this law?
Instead, you insinuate that Bush is along with his "oil buddies" is behind all of this. Perhaps you didn't bother to read that Exxon Mobil had ceased from claiming this royality relief because of the higher oil prices?
I'm not defending Kerr McGee for their lawsuit threat; I think it's wrong of them to take advantage of a legal loophole like this one.
I just think your focus on the source and solution for this particular problem is misplaced.
Posted by love liberty at 02/14/2006 @ 6:04pm
Greenwald posted an incisive examination of the current state of "conservatism." I'll summarize, then provide the link so you can read his original post, his response to critics, and his updates. Essentially, Greenwald demonstrates that "conservatism" has, at least rhetorically, ceased to exist. He argues, quite persuasively, that the current definition of "Liberal" is "Those who criticize George W. Bush." He goes on to demonstrate that the current definition of "Conservative" is "Those who adapt their principles to accommodate whatever George W. Bush does."
BushMan (who is, quite frankly, nothing more than a screeching harpy--I know it's fun for some of you to engage him, but his posts are frequently obscene and never enlightening. Reply if you must; but please don't include his comments in your posts!) is a living example of Greenwald's thesis. But far better people than BushMan are equally good examples--perhaps without even realizing it.
(You do realize, don't you, that BushMan is an undersexed 18-year old who lives in his parents' basement and posts here when he gets bored with his soft-porn Manga graphic novels, right?)
Anyway, here's the link. I would be interested to read the thoughtful comments of my many friends on this site:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/do-bush-followers-have-politi cal.html
Posted by LisaJo at 02/14/2006 @ 7:07pm
LISAJO,
Bush said he would be a uniter. And he has been a success. Crowds of people can now gather together, embrace each other even, secure in the knowledge that they are on the same side of the most important issue of the day. Just think, years ago such embraces would have been much more limited: not all pro-choice people are pro-affirmative action for example. But now, we can all embrace each other simply because we know that our president is wrong. About most anything. He has allowed us to cease focusing on our differences and come together as one big bitter bunch of folks.
History will certainly smile on the man who could unite us.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 7:46pm
Often here, I'm reminded of this scene from "The Young Ones"---
Anarchist: Next week, right, I'm going to blow up a panda in Croydon.
Rick: Yeah, right on! Bloody zoos, who needs 'em.
Anarchist: I mean a police car, you terminal wally!
Posted by Mask at 02/14/2006 @ 8:12pm
Somebody give Mask a hug.
But I just realized how pathetic this is. I need to finalize the romantic plans for the evening. And, no, this is not a good time for a group embrace.
Posted by tjbehrens1 at 02/14/2006 @ 8:21pm
OK so does mean there were 80K names on the list being tapped in 2003 or that 325K x 4 = 1.3 million being tapped now? Maybe I just need to sleep on it.. g'night.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/14/AR200602 1402125.html
325,000 Names on Terrorism List Rights Groups Say Database May Include Innocent People By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Page A01
The National Counterterrorism Center maintains a central repository of 325,000 names of international terrorism suspects or people who allegedly aid them, a number that has more than quadrupled since the fall of 2003, according to counterterrorism officials.
Posted by Bushfools at 02/15/2006 @ 01:45am
"What Will It take?
The news media can write articles and voice opinions about how President George W. Bush and Vice-President Cheney have lied about this and that. (In fact, what took them so long to realize that.) But, this still means nothing. Such revelations of Truth have become the back and forth cackle of gossiping spin masters signifying nothing, as nothing has changed.
No, the real deal is when one reporter, that first one, upon being chosen by President Bush to ask a question at one of his press opportunities, stands up and summons the Strength and Courage to ask, " Mr. President, when you lied about...!"
That's what it will take --- before the rest of them will do the same. It's time for someone to say that the Emperor has no clothes.
Only then, will the Wisdom of Truth find its place in our great land. Until then, lying continues to be our government's national pastime. We expect it. We take it for granted. We kill and die for it. And the shadows of sadness remain our constant companions...
(But who would have the Courage to print this?)
Posted by bohda yuri at 02/15/2006 @ 03:16am
MSNBC complicit in COVERUP:
Search Google news for the following:
there may be a beer or two in there
Check out this link on google news and note what it says about beer consumption. Then click on the link and read the article. The excerpt used in the subheader is missing from the article. The excerpt was clearly the MOST RELEVANT portion of the entire article - but MSNBC scrubbed it.
GUILTY.
WHO ORDERED THAT IT BE SCRUBBED?
INVESTIGATE!
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=there+may+be+a+beer+or+two+in +there&btnG=Search+News
Posted by plunger at 02/15/2006 @ 05:49am
ALL
Son of a bitch.....Plunger is correct. Something stinks.
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/15/2006 @ 07:28am
"No, the real deal is when one reporter, that first one, upon being chosen by President Bush to ask a question at one of his press opportunities, stands up and summons the Strength and Courage to ask, " Mr. President, when you lied about...!"
Posted by BOHDA YURI 02/15/2006 @ 03:16am
Naw...checks and balances? Who needs them? The 'fourth estate'? What's that? Welcome to Amerika.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zero,
You were right. If you distill a question down to a yes or no, and leave no wiggle room for obfuscation, you'll get no response from Nakl.... just thought I would try. I wonder if he hides, when he reads questions like that, because he knows his answer won't support his vitriol. Or if his brain just locks up. (Should we call 911?...oh wait, we are liberals. Only 'conservatives' call out '911' whenever thay need help.)
What's the deal salty? Can you answer a simple question: Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/14/2006 @ 12:27am
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 10:42am
eric, obviously mr. salty's teeny little brain has frozen up. he went to mr. corn's blog to feel oh so clever with a long rant about mr. corn's death. he's a real piece of work, that one.
Posted by loveloki at 02/15/2006 @ 12:22pm
I guess. Maybe mastering the art of 'center justified text' and subsequent cut and paste was all his brain could muster.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 1:26pm
Maybe I should get a cool, chemical screenname like salties.
I was considering "CuSO4"...copper sulfate...Better known as, "blue vitriol"
Funny, he should usurp chemistry (i.e. science) to name himself after a myth from the bible.
(Yo, salty, there is a reason no one ever said 'nacl of the earth' back in the day. They were as cluless as to how the world works, as you are today.)
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 1:44pm
Something stinks.
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 02/15/2006 @ 07:28am
...if you through enough salt on it, it'll dry out and you won't be able to smell it.
hahaha...i kill me.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 1:45pm
Eric
LOL..took me a second.....
Posted by leftofcenter at 02/15/2006 @ 5:57pm