Dana Millbank fakes a quote from Obama, press and GOP run with it. That dastardly “liberal media”.
Check out how MSNBC handles it:
Per a Democratic source, “[The Post] left out the important first half of the sentence, which was along the lines of: ‘It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol…” Regardless of the context now, this narrative has been ready to explode at some point and even a misreported quote was enough to spark this arrogance watch.
(emphasis mine)
That’s right. MSNBC is saying that it doesn’t matter that the quote was manipulated and wrong, it fits an existing press/GOP narrative, so we’re running with it. WTF?
So, is this similar to how the DNC manipulated McCain’s quote about 100 years in Iraq?
Well, except that McCain actually said we should spend 100 years in Iraq.
Are you actually saying these quotes are not distorting McCains original quote?
What McCain said:
Maybe 100, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”
What Barry O said:
“Sen. McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq — which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House,”
“He (McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq” (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).
– “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years” (Obama, Feb. 26).
– “He’s (McCain) willing to keep this war going for 100 years” (Hillary Clinton, March 17).
– “What date between now and the election in November will he (McCain) drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?” (Chris Matthews, March 4).
Milbank writes:
The Obama campaign reports the quote as
What part of Milbank’s quoted words from Obama are “FAKE”?
Or is this like your post where you lied about the pentagon telling Obama he couldn’t visit the troops?
The pentagon did tell Obama he couldn’t come. And yes, Milbank faked the quote from Obama – he totally perverted what Sen. Obama actually said, unlike the instance with McCain where he said on multiple occasions he couldn’t see a problem with staying in Iraq for 100 years.
Again Oliver:
100 YEAR WAR VS MILITARY PRESENCE
Can you tell the difference between the two? It’s called manipulating a quote…
LIAR. I can’t believe you are going to stick with this.
Then explicitly write the part that Milbank made up.
What Barack actually said doesn’t make any sense. One of the “best traditions of America” is 200,000 excited Germans?
Oh please: Not even Obama himself is trying to peddle that spin anymore.
unlike the instance with McCain where he said on multiple occasions he couldn’t see a problem with staying in Iraq for 100 years
Unfortunately, that’s not what you’ve accused him of. You’ve said repeatedly that John McCain said we “should be in Iraq for 100 years.”
The quote above from Obama is a COMPLETE distortion of what McCain said.
Man. It’s getting to the point where I’d like to see Obama come out and say, “The sky is purple.” Immediately, the blog lines would go into overdrive with every Obamadrone posting the sky is purple and anybody who says otherwise is just not receptive to HOPE and CHANGE!
Geez, Oliver, what universe do you live in?
1) The Pentagon NEVER turned Obama away — they turned away his campaign’s military advisor, and Obama chose to not go at all. I got that from the very source you cited.
B) The “fake but accurate” meme has been a mainstay of the mainstream media for ages — its most prominent usage was when Dan Rather and Mary Mapes tried to pass off those fake Texas Air National Guard documents.
III) The essential conditional McCain used in his “hundred years” remark was that Americans would NOT be attacked on a daily basis. Kind of like how we have troops in Cuba, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Kuwait, just to name a few. Look up “lying by omission” some time — it seems a concept with which you are not familiar. Or, if you prefer, “Dowdifying” — named after Maureen Dowd’s habit of dropping words from quotes to pervert (or, sometimes, reversing) the meaning of a quote.
You could do far, far better than to choose to emulate Dowd when it comes to making positions.
J.
Once again, I ask our resident wingnuts – if you’re going to insist that it’s not fair to interpret McCain’s comment to mean “100 years war” because he only meant “100 year *presence* if we’re not being attacked”, then I DEMAND you tell me how long McCain thinks we will be staying in Iraq AS LONG AS WE ARE BEING ATTACKED.
Answer now, fascists.
As to Obama’s quote, here’s the deal:
[The Post] left out the important first half of the sentence, which was along the lines of: ‘It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol … .”
So, um, yeah, leaving off that first bit is kind of a problem…
Are you blind?
Compare: The 200,000 souls who thronged to his speech in Berlin came not just for him, he told the enthralled audience of congressional representatives
to
“It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all.”
1) 200,000 people in Berlin
2) did not come for him
and your point is????
He is saying, as you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge, that German and European people want to like America again, they WANT to see America as a force for good in the world. That is why they hope to see the change that is represented by this campaign, because it will mean an end to the Bushite militarism that McCain plans to continue and expand.
And I notice you haven’t answered my question, either.
My point is that I want to know what part of the quote is “faked.” You haven’t pointed it out. What Milbank wrote as a summary (which you claim he omitted as a direct quote) compares nicely to what Obama said.
I haven’t argued about what it means. That’s all you.
If the quote is “faked” then it should be easy to explicitly write the exact words that were not actually said.
Um… not a fascist here, Rheinhard, but if you don’t mind, I’ll take a stab at that question.
Rheinhard, what news have you heard out of Iraq in the last couple of weeks? Here’s a hint — it hasn’t been mentioned much in the mainstream media, and that’s usually an indicator of good news.
As of right now, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have killed a grand total of three American troops in the month of July. One every ten days, on average.
Obviously it’s too early to make it official, but the trend of US troops killed in combat has trended down dramatically for a little while now. It looks like “General Betray-Us” and the “doomed” surge strategy worked out pretty well, despite Obama’s disapproval.
Hope that news doesn’t upset you too much, Rheinhard…
J.
Right, John McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years. What part of this can’t you guys understand?
And yes, the pentagon told Obama’s campaign they couldn’t go to the base.
And yes, Dana Milbank distorted Sen. Obama’s quote. I don’t know why you guys think you can get away with this. We’re going to check these things by doing a Google.
Answer now, fascists.
Hey Rheinhard, introduce yourself to Dale Carnegie. You’re not going to (nor do you deserve) an answer when you give orders and call people fascists.
Hey, Oliver told the truth! Someone notify the press! (Which will then get lambasted by Media Matters for not properly genuflecting to Obama, Soros, and the loony left.)
Oliver’s spent almost a week saying the Pentagon told Obama he couldn’t go to Landstuhl, and hasn’t bothered to let such petty, ignorant idiots like the Petnagon and the Obama camp contradicting him stand in his way. Finally, he’s accepted the reality of the situation — “the pentagon told Obama’s campaign they couldn’t go to the base.”
Obama was NEVER disinvited, just his campaign staff.
And McCain’s whole, unexpurgated quote, from this very site:
I’m impressed, Oliver. You managed to combine two lies in one thread.
I withdraw any and all prior remarks I might have made about your qualifications for your day job.
J.
Jay – unfortunately the comment formatting system on this site didn’t print out the part I wrote immediately after the “Answer now, fascists” (and without a preview button it’s hard to know what will get dropped and what won’t). If you know html, it would have been:
</jmccann>
in other words “end jmccann style tag” (aping his popular “Answer now, Marxists” bullshit)
And Oliver continues to avoid printing which words are the distortion.
I don’t know why you think you can get away with this. Both Milbank’s and the campaign’s quotes are right here in the thread.
All you have to do is type the offending words. It shouldn’t be too hard for a smart, honest guy like you.
Missed that, Rheinhard. Fair cop.
J.
Ah I see, apparently we just write straightforward html in this thing…
</jmmcann> → </jmccann>
Then McCain is a liar. The conditions McCain lists for staying 100 years are the same conditions he uses for taking our troops out of Iraq. PANDER BEAR strikes again.
“I do not want to keep our troops in Iraq a minute longer than necessary to secure our interests there. Our goal is an Iraq that can stand on its own as a democratic ally and a responsible force for peace in its neighborhood. Our goal is an Iraq that no longer needs American troops…”
Yep, to the same degree as Obama, who wants to pull out the troops except for all the ones he wants to keep there to fight AQ.
Rheinhard, gotcha.
OW: Right, John McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years. What part of this can’t you guys understand?
The part where he “wants” us there. Or where he said, per your earlier comment “we should spend 100 years in Iraq”. (emphasis mine)
Saying he’d be willing to spend 100 years mantaining a presence in a very volatile part of the world is not the same as saying he wants to be there.
You’re developing a nasty habit of doing exactly what you’re complaining about others doing and misrepresenting what people are saying. And it really isn’t necessary. There is certainly plenty to criticize McCain about for what he actually does do/say.
The last year of the election has changed this site — McCain (and anyone who supports him) is deeply flawed (a really sizable chunk of the populace) and when just about any criticism of Obama isn’t prefaced with a bit of apology, we get this “he’s too uppity for you, huh?” like we don’t really care about issues, just keeping someone “in their place,” whereas you really care. They’re cheap shots, I feel.
Wow, Oliver — you went from being a source of pretty interesting perspectives to almost a flack site — you aren’t even civil a lot of the time anymore. I hate “gotcha” kind of posts or statements that sound like they came from a campaign notebook somewhere. I know you don’t agree with this — maybe it’s me. I’ll be glad when this election is over and people can go back to normal exchanges.
Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Jonathan Weisman, The Trail
Any of you winger geniuses care to guess where you went wrong on this one?
Carleton: I’ve written the same way on this site for almost 9 years now. Nothing has changed. I’ve never been tolerant of conservative bull, and I call it like I see them.
McCain wants us in Iraq. He thinks we should stay in Iraq. He thinks its a good idea to stay in Iraq.
Did I stutter?
RELATED: Milbank accuses Obama of “hubris” while cropping quotes, making false insinuations, and neglecting basic reporting
> I’ve written the same way on this site for almost 9 years now. Nothing has changed.
I’m curious. You rarely make a serious attempt to defend your position in comment threads. Why? Are you just so convinced of your rightness that dissenting opinions don’t need to be responded to? I would assume not, if for no other reason than that would be a rather arrogant position for anyone to take. Just want a soapbox in your corner of the internet? Like watching the dustup in the comment threads?
Why would we be in Iraq for 100 years if we weren’t still encountering hostile forces? Isn’t our very presence creating a large number of those very problems?
At what point do we stop being an “unwanted-occupying-force-illegally-put-in-place-after-an-unprovoked-act-of-aggression-defined-as-a-war-crime-under-international-law” and morph into a “barely-tolerated-but-present-at-the-invitation-of-the-local-sovereign-government-military-force” (ala Japan or South Korea)?
If this is seen as a fight against terrorists, wouldn’t that be part of the “War on Terror?” That means that even when we aren’t getting shot at, we’re in a perpetual state of war, right, like the “war on drugs?” Could it be that the “war on terror” is a false frame that dangerously redefines “war” not as a open military conflict with another national military force but as any endeavor we take super-duper seriously (like the war on Christmas)? Is this why whenever we talk about Iraq, it jumps back and forth between “conflict” and “war” depending on which term is most convenient( i.e. “cut-and-run defeato-crats who want to lose the war” whenever withdrawal is mentioned). Kind of like the case with “terrorist” vs “freedom fighter” vs “insurgent” vs “extremist.”
If we aren’t “protecting” Iraq from al-Qaeda , then who are we watching out for? Iran? We already put them in power when we opened the door to a Shia dominated government. The Iraq government has openly invited them in.
Let’s be honest, McCain’s “100 years” statement can be parsed to death, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is fine with a prolonged U.S. presence in a region that abhors our continual interference and is greatly destabilized by it (and it’s 12 U.S. military dead for July, I believe, not 3, though that is a welcome improvement…especially compared to Afghanistan, but that’s another debate). Considering we will have torched all the oil in the region by 2108, I have to figure they must be hiding a lot of fresh water or something else we can screw them out of. Whatever the case, I’m sure we’ll just go on selling everyone military equipment and doling out no-bid contracts to disreputable private contractors as always.
War = money, after all.
Hey, maybe the idea that Obama will actually pull our troops out in 16 months is reducing the number of U.S. military deaths, or maybe the sectarian purges are reaching their limit and the ethnic cleansing is nearly complete, or maybe the surge has resulted in reduced violence for the obvious reason that if you line up more people at the dike, you’ve got more fingers to plug leaks. Unfortunately, the surge was supposed to result in a long term political solution to the problem of sectarian violence, not a potentially fleeting military solution that may collapse at any time for any number of reasons (domestic economics, renewed insurgency, etc.). Hmmmm, I guess it depends on whether you define the surge using the administration and military’s own criteria when it was initiated or the current convenient definition that ignores all that and focuses on the current levels of violence (which, while improved, can’t be called permanent).
Apparently McCain is hiring trolls now. This Republican crap is so bad it has to be people getting paid as even a good GOP free-market hack wouldn’t regurgitate this nonsense for free without feeling dirty.
As to the fascist concerns there is a good definition:
“Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole”
That clearly applies to the GOP if you exclude the mass movement part. They won’t get it as they’ve already bought the package but well worth keeping an eye on by any independent thinkers.
Oliver – stop posting links to nekked girls and the trolls will go back to the gossip sites. Or not. I find them fairly entertaining.
I should clarify that the trolls and links are both entertaining. I’d give up the links if it would reduce the stupid but am willing to keep both.
Bill L. made a fantastic post that my only disagreement with is his assumption that there is any consideration of the year 2108 in this administration. They’ll be long gone and don’t give a rats ass what happens to those that follow. That is their legacy.
Once the oil from Iraq starts paying for the invasion I’ll be surprised but relieved that atleast one projection from the current administration was correct but I am skeptical that moment will ever occur. Chances are it will rollup to Exxon profits and the US will never see it. If history is any guide.
So Iraq oil or (warning: troll bait) OCS oil will not bring our our prices back to $3.99 a gallon. What to do? While we’ll be fine I will let the Repug drill everywhere crowd have their say. Save me $.25 per gallon in 2020 repugs, please!
Switched,
Yeah, that the year 2108 was just me jumping into the future from McCain’s “100 years” nonsense and not some real target date. Clearly McCain just plucked that number out of his a$$ to drive home his support for “business as usual” with regards to U.S. foreign policy, particularly with regards to the Mid East.
Switched, the gas stations around me are down to about $3.99/gallon or lower (but not by much — a nickel or so at most). And the only thing I can see that has changed was Bush announcing the Executive Order on offshore billing was history. That actually meant nothing, as there’s also a law on the books saying the same that Congress is fighting over repealing, but it seems just the possibility of increased domestic supply was enough to shave about a dime or so off the price of gas.
I’m not sure if there’s a direct causal relationship between Bush’s announcement and the drop in gas (and, as well, oil — it’s about $20 or so below its peak), but darned if I can see anything else that might have triggered it.
J.
didn’t all of you mcbush lickers hate him during the primaries?
Did I stutter?
No. Just lied. Repeatedly. Again. As usual.
didn’t all of you mcbush lickers hate him during the primaries?
not as much as all of you obama fellators hated hillary during the primaries
McHoperson :
100 YEAR WAR VS MILITARY PRESENCE
Can you tell the difference between the two? It’s called manipulating a quote…
This is a distinction without a difference. If our military occupies Iraq for 100 years, then we will have 100 years of war. What is it that causes you to believe that the Iraqis are not human beings and that they will accept without nary an expression of protest their country being occupied by a foreign military for 100 years?
This is a distinction without a difference. If our military occupies Iraq for 100 years, then we will have 100 years of war.
No it’s not. A military presence in a country (which is what McCain is referring to with Iraq) is not the same as an occupation. Otherwise, by your reasoning we must still be at war with Japan and Germany since we have bases and troops there.
Of course neither of the quotes in regard to the 200,000 showing up for Obama in Berlin are accurate given that the 200,000 showed up for the rock concert, free food and booze.
Of course neither of the quotes in regard to the 200,000 showing up for Obama in Berlin are accurate given that the 200,000 showed up for the rock concert, free food and booze.
Or 20,000, according to the German TV station who was actually covering the rally:
But what about the “official estimate” from the Berlin Police?
The Obama team? I’m sure they would be totally objective about the crowd count.
Japan and Germany initiated WWII and any forces we currently have there are at their discretion. Remind me again who started the (current) Iraq war? Had Germany or Japan (or both) won WWII and stationed an occupying force in the U.S. for the next 100 years (which we would all still be living under), that’s be fine, right? I am following the logic here, yes?
OMG, gas is down to $3.99 a gallon? Happy days! Like we haven’t seen this exact pattern over and over again these past eight years. Gas prices spike, everyone goes into shock, they float back down a bit, not much, but just enough to convince consumers they are getting a “bargain.” Now Bush signs an executive order allowing oil companies more opportunities to rape the environment, and prices drop around the same time. It must be his Midas touch! Forget that no new oil will start flowing for at least 10 years or so. Ignore the fact that oil companies haven’t used over 70% of their existing lease options. Or maybe it’s the crumbling economy.
Nah, it’s gotta be that titan of government and industry, George Walker Bush.
Jay Tea, Jul 31st, 2008 at 4:00 am
Switched, the gas stations around me are down to about $3.99/gallon or lower (but not by much — a nickel or so at most). And the only thing I can see that has changed was Bush announcing the Executive Order on offshore billing was history.
What you didn’t see was the statistics pointing out that travel (and hence gas consumption, and thus profits to the gasoline providers) have leveled off, and are going down steadily. And alternative, non petroleum based transportation efforts are getting to the point where they can compete with $4 gas.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08aprtvt/08aprtvt.pdf
(go to page 9 for the chart)
My interpretation (not that you’ll note it – Republican’t Putsch fellators have avoided my comments like the plague because I’m not all nice and civil to them while they’re trying to give me and mine a curb stomping. Funny how it’s only okay to demand answers and call names when you’re a Republican’t. But I digress…) is that big oil corpo-weasels are trying to screw with any potential competition by monkeying around with gas prices. People start getting interested in alternatives to petroleum = time to lower the gas price again. To just under the price where people will turn their backs on it, and get back to their conspicuous consumption.
And the only thing I can see that has changed was Bush announcing the Executive Order on offshore billing was history.
If that’s the “only thing you can see,” obviously nothing else could have possibly happened, for Mr. Tea is all-seeing.
Remind me again who started the (current) Iraq war?
According to Dear Leader, Saddam Hussein started it because he was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden, didn’t destroy his many WMDs, and wouldn’t let weapons inspectors into Iraq. Oh, and he was attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium–from Africa!–to nuke us via balsa-wood drone planes. And other rock-solid reasons.
Remind me again who started the (current) Iraq war?
That would be Saddam Hussein, who invaded Kuwait back in 1990, then refused to abide by the terms of his 1991 surrender. The “current” war is simply the extension and conclusion of that war.
J.
Republican’t Putsch fellators have avoided my comments like the plague because I’m not all nice and civil to them while they’re trying to give me and mine a curb stomping. Funny how it’s only okay to demand answers and call names when you’re a Republican’t. But I digress…)
“Waaaaa! Those evil Repugs are mean to me when I’m just trying to have a civil conversation with them” says the person who puts his retarded ‘Republican’t Putsch fellators’ phrase into every single one of his comments. Which, by the way, makes no sense… you can’t fellate a “Coup d’état”. Idiot.
Try advancing your ideas without the obligatory ‘Republican’t Putsch fellators’ or similar cracks and see if you get a different response.
Geez, Tom, why so tense?
Man, your little phrase shows a lot about you.
“Republican’t Putsch fellators?” Wow, it’s a threefer!
“Repbulican’t.” My, how clever. And not a word from those who routinely howl about “the Democrat Party” and “Democraps” and the like. Thanks for demonstrating the selective outrage.
“Putsch.” Yup, that just screams “hey, I just made a subtle allusion to Nazis! I called you Nazis without actually using the word! Ain’t I clever?”
“Fellators.” Hey, a homophobe too! My, ain’t you just all kinds of bigot?
The really funny part is when you combine the Nazi and homosexual slurs. The Nazis were notoriously homophobic — they are the ones who INVENTED the pink triangle, and used it to identify gays in concentration and death camps. Actual gay Nazis were extremely rare, and thoroughly closeted.
How the hell did Oliver manage to lure you away from Democratic Underground?
You hate Nazis. I can agree with that one. I hate Nazis, too. Especially Illinois Nazis.
You hate Republicans. I can see that; there are a lot of Repbulicans I don’t like, either.
You hate gays. That’s practically a hate crime these days. Better watch out for the civil rights groups.
Strowbridge, if you’re reading this, I apologize. I’ve mocked your frothing rages in the past. But this guy makes you look like a piker. Hell, you’re almost the Dalai Lama compared to this gibbering dolt.
You guys want him on your side? You’re more than welcome to him.
J.
That would be Saddam Hussein, who invaded Kuwait back in 1990, then refused to abide by the terms of his 1991 surrender. The “current” war is simply the extension and conclusion of that war.
*Pats Jay on the head*
good for you. Now run along and play, the grown-ups are talking.
not as much as all of you obama fellators hated hillary during the primaries
Again, I ask you, why should I have supported someone that didn’t want my support?
Oh, you wacky ultra-cons, why do you hate America so much?
Sorry, Zython, I dunno what I was thinking. Oh, yeah, now I remember — the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In Iraq, approved on October 16, 2002.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
Passed 296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate. For those mathematically challenged, that’s over 2/3 in the House and over 3/4 in the Senate.
And that’s just the first four paragraphs, Zython. It goes on — and on and on — from there.
Astonishing what one can learn when one actually goes and looks things up and sees what really happened and stops mindlessly repeating platitudes and trite phrases like “Bush lied!!!!!!!” You might want to give it a try some time.
J.
Jay Tea, Jul 31st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Geez, Tom, why so tense?
I dunno – maybe twenty plus years of Rush and his friends in the mainstream media making statements about me and mine similar to the ones you’re objecting to might have something to do with it…
Man, your little phrase shows a lot about you.
Your selective outrage speaks volumes about your character as well…
“Republican’t Putsch fellators?” Wow, it’s a threefer!
You noticed!
“Repbulican’t.” My, how clever. And not a word from those who routinely howl about “the Democrat Party” and “Democraps” and the like. Thanks for demonstrating the selective outrage.
After I have said Republican’t all over the mainstream media for twenty plus years, then you might have a case. If 90 plus percent of the media echoed it for those twenty years as well.
Funny – you seem to be objecting to my offensive content, after twenty years plus of institutionalized offensiveness towards Democrats by the media. And me here with my little comments on a blog, and them saturating the media with their slur every day all day. That’s some fine comparative analysis you gots there…
“Putsch.” Yup, that just screams “hey, I just made a subtle allusion to Nazis! I called you Nazis without actually using the word! Ain’t I clever?”
Or it could mean that I have considered the illegal installation of the Republican’t candidate in the last two federal elections to be somewhat similar to a Putsch.
D. a plotted revolt or attempt to overthrow a government, esp. one that depends upon suddenness and speed.
“Fellators.” Hey, a homophobe too! My, ain’t you just all kinds of bigot?
How nice of you to accuse me of bigotry! I wonder if I might be referring to the way Republican’ts like to swallow every word of the pretzeldunce as if it was spunky goodness? Or if that would even be admissible by someone of your political leanings?
The really funny part is when you combine the Nazi and homosexual slurs. The Nazis were notoriously homophobic — they are the ones who INVENTED the pink triangle, and used it to identify gays in concentration and death camps. Actual gay Nazis were extremely rare, and thoroughly closeted.
The really really funny part is when Republican’ts get all upset when someone treats them the same way they’ve treated Democrats for pretty much as long as I can remember…
How the hell did Oliver manage to lure you away from Democratic Underground?
How the heck did you manage to navigate through the intertubes from FReeperville to ODub’s web site?
By the way, nice subtle insult there – after your critique about my insulting ways, it’s particularly hypocritically delicious…
You hate Nazis. I can agree with that one. I hate Nazis, too. Especially Illinois Nazis.
Please don’t presume to tell me what I hate, what I like, how I think, why I think it, and/or anything else about me. Especially if you are criticizing me about making presumptuous statement you don’t like…
You hate Republicans. I can see that; there are a lot of Repbulicans I don’t like, either.
Actually, I don’t. I dislike any individuals who abuse the system. Especially the ones who hypocritically denounce others for doing the same thing they are doing themselves.
It might be a bit more accurate to say that I dislike politicians quite a bit.
You hate gays. That’s practically a hate crime these days. Better watch out for the civil rights groups.
Actually, I don’t hate them at all. But I’m relatively certain that actual statement from actual people stating their actual beliefs (when they don’t agree with your presumptions) would not be considered very much or given much credibility by you.
Strowbridge, if you’re reading this, I apologize. I’ve mocked your frothing rages in the past. But this guy makes you look like a piker. Hell, you’re almost the Dalai Lama compared to this gibbering dolt.
It is incredible to me that you fail to notice the much more offensive and vituperous remarks of the conservative propaganda catapultists spewing their hatred of all things Democratic all over the airwaves all day every day. And that you seem to be much more offended by someone commenting on a blog than you are about those screaming Democratic hatred to the american people in the mainstream media.
And another nice insult, while criticizing others for engaging in insulting behavior! Such moral consistency and exemplary behavior! What a sterling example of an upstanding individual!
You guys want him on your side? You’re more than welcome to him.
“I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side”.
Funny how the idiot rottweiler doesn’t seem to cause you nearly as much angst as little old me. Or that protein wisdom guy who wants to give everyone a cock slapping. Or sPammy Atlas or Michelle Maglalangadingdong or any of the many counter-examples I could bring up that seem to me to be much more offensive in their comments than I. Not to mention any of the mainstream media types. Oh – wait. You didn’t. Back to the fainting couch with you!
after twenty years plus of institutionalized offensiveness towards Democrats by the media.
Dude, put the crack pipe away.
Too funny. It’s like the past 7 years never happened in some circles. Weapons inspectors returned to Iraq in 2002 and found no evidence of large stockpiles of any thing, much less chemical or nuclear weapons. In fact, they were there when Bush declared war, despite claiming that he would wait for the inspectors to do their job. They were there when he told a graduating class at West Point that they weren’t, and so we had to attack Saddam (a flat out lie, remember those fun discussions?).
Remember the aluminum tubes?
Curveball?
Chalabi?
Scott Ritter?
Yellow cake?
The cooked NIE?
Want to jump into the wayback machine and discuss the first Gulf War and how Saddam, after getting our support during the Iraq/Iran war expected us to rush to his aid in his dispute with Kuwait over their purported slant drilling only to have us declare war on him?
How about the fake stories about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in their incubators and other stellar bits of propaganda?
We do love to create our messes and then ride in to the rescue, don’t we? Sell weapons to dictators, watch the mayhem, then ride to the rescue, secure the oil fields, set up the permanent military bases, and dole out the no-bid contracts.
BTW, anybody going to cop to being completely 100% wrong about Oliver misrepresenting Dana Milbank’s words? You know, the reason this thread got started?
Jay, Aug 1st, 2008 at 10:37 am
after twenty years plus of institutionalized offensiveness towards Democrats by the media.
Dude, put the crack pipe away.
Duude – you think you’ve made a point?
So Rush hasn’t been spewing hatred of all things Democratic since the eighties? On major media outlets across the country? On Armed Forces Frelling Radio for an hour a day, for Koresh’ sake!
Hannity hasn’t been doing the same? Michael Savage? Glenn Beck? Fox News? Clear Channel hasn’t been censoring Democratic ads, taking groups off their playlists because they said something bad about Bush, or refusing to host liberal talk radio programs?
Perhaps you could use, like, logic and facts and stuff, if you would like to contest my allegation.
Also please note the lack of reference to any of the offensive terms, about those upstanding individuals in the party that controlled all branches of government from 2000 to 2006, that got your knickers in a twist. Feel free to note the lack of accuracy in your previous statements about how I’m always saying all those nasty things about others every single time I comment anywhere – who apparently (as far as you’re concerned) aren’t nearly as mean, nasty, and offensive as me.
Bill, you said:
In fact, they were there when Bush declared war, despite claiming that he would wait for the inspectors to do their job.
Funny, in MY Constitution, it takes Congress to declare war. Presidents only get to prosecute wars.
Congress, as I pointed out above, passed the Authorization For The Use Of Military Force In Iraq, and could repeal that Act at any time. Funny how, especially since the Democrats took the majority of Congress, they haven’t even TRIED to repeal it. Rather, they’ve tried some very, very low-key versions of doing it — cutting spending, putting limits, and whatnot — and failed miserably each and every time.
Why, it’s almost as if the elected Democrats with the power to end the war/occupation/whatever you want to call it don’t really want to. It’s almost as if they know that we’re doing the right thing, that we’re doing the necessary thing, but don’t dare admit it because the craziest elements of their base would go completely batshit on them.
That would explain their actions — and inactions — to a T. But it would require a bit of strength of character and integrity and honesty and intelligence.
And that would be unheard of.
J.
Why, it’s almost as if the elected Democrats with the power to end the war/occupation/whatever you want to call it don’t really want to. It’s almost as if they know that we’re doing the right thing, that we’re doing the necessary thing,
Lovely.
George Bush ran us off this cliff. Now you want to blame the Democrats for gravity?
Quaker, you heard much news out of Iraq lately?
Silly question. If you pay attention to the mainstream media, then the answer is “no.” Good news doesn’t sell; “if it bleeds, it leads.”
And while I don’t think we’ve “run off the cliff,” I’m pointing out that the Democrats have — both through action and inaction — aided and abetted the policies that they say they oppose, and have folks like you all a-dither.
IF the Democrats really believe the war is wrong and a disaster, THEN they have a moral responsibility to do what they — and no one else — can do and stop it.
Yes, they could be stopped by the Republicans because they don’t hold a supermajority. But they aren’t even trying. They’re fighting over a bunch of issues, but ending the war isn’t one of them.
That says to me that, at least, it isn’t a priority. Or they don’t really believe they ought to.
You got an alternative explanation for them not even trying?
J.
Yeah, Jay. If all we can do now is quietly forget the motives for invasion.
Pardon us while we tie this WMD thing around your neck and throw you overboard.
Jay – My guess is that the majority has never really had an ‘end-the-war’ caucus with enough clout and political will to twist the arms of the fence-sitters, i.e. there are enough blue dogs to render the issue fuzzier. Despite all the snarling from the ‘end-it-now’ groups like moveon, the American people have not pressured the fence-sitters sufficiently that they must take action, as began to happen with Vietnam (this is likely because there is no draft).
Also, they’ve tried to set timetables, and I believe they did have a majority on a few. They were vetoed each time, weren’t they? Am I full of it? Should I do a little research here, or do you remember it that way too?
Parthenon, I don’t recall the specific circumstances either, but I do know that Bush has issued very, very, very few vetoes in his presidency — the first came in 2005 or 2006, as I recall. So I don’t think any withdrawal efforts have gotten out of Congress.
I do strongly believe, though, that more effort has been put into impeaching Bush and Cheney than in actually putting a legal end to the war. And that’s been largely through the efforts of Kucinich.
J.
That’s a mighty big IF, Mr. Tea.
And what if the Democrats believe the invasion was wrong and a disaster? Can they turn back time and undo it?
And while I don’t think we’ve “run off the cliff,”
Recall: Mr. Bush told Pat Robertson “We won’t have casualties.”
Recall: Team Bush fired a budget analyst who suggested the cost of the war might rise as high as $200 billion.
Recall: Smoking gun = mushroom cloud.
Sure thing, Mr. Tea. We’re right on track.
Wait, so the answer to my post disputing the notion that Saddam started the second Iraq war is “but the Democrats haven’t stopped it yet?”
Well okay then. Just checking.