Your Media Sucks, 12/23/08 Edition

December 23rd, 2008 CNN Media 41 Comments


('DiggThis’)

Share

CNN chyron: “Security Fear: Shirtless Obama Pic”.

STFU.

Sad Oprah laments media malpractice.

Posted in CNN, Media |
«
»
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

41 Responses to “Your Media Sucks, 12/23/08 Edition”

  1. Jay Tea says:
    December 24, 2008 at 1:53 am

    Man, are you behind the times.

    I’ve known CNN was atrocious for years. I think their greatest act of malpractice was covering up Saddam’s atrocities in exchange for “access” in Iraq. And when their boss dude said that the US forces in Iraq were “targeting” journalists.

    J.

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    December 24, 2008 at 3:19 am

    And when they cheerleaded the Iraq war with the rest of the MSM, that was mighty egregious too.

  3. Jay Tea says:
    December 24, 2008 at 4:09 am

    Was that the same CNN that predicted an American death toll in the tens or hundreds of thousands if we even tried to overthrow Saddam? Or is there another one of which I am unaware?

    J.

  4. soullite says:
    December 24, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Yeah… The greatest journalistic atrocity of the last decade is a dude on CNN commenting that an unusually high number of journalists have died in this war.

    Go back to 23% land dude, we’re still trying to shake the hangover from the decade of crazy you people have been selling.

  5. Jay Tea says:
    December 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm

    Soullite, give yourself and education this Christmas. Go and read the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq resolution, and see ALL the reasons why Congress thought war was appropriate. Then scroll through the roll call of the votes — turns out that the Vice-President Elect, the Secretary of State nominee, and a host of other prominent people with a (D) after their name also voted for it.

    Kinda disillusioning, isn’t it?

    And yes, I chose that term very carefully — the rewriting of the history of the Iraq war has been a fantastic exercise in illusion over reality.

    J.

  6. Duros62 says:
    December 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    shorter jay: blah blah bladdity blah

    Authorization for the use of Military force is not the same thing as a declaration of war.

  7. Jay Tea says:
    December 24, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    I think that was Hillary Clinton’s excuse for voting for it… “I thought we were voting for Bush to bluff, not actually go to war!”

    Section 3a: Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
    Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
    appropriate in order to–
    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


    Section 3c: War Powers Resolution Requirements.–
    (1) Specific statutory authorization.–Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
    (2) Applicability of other requirements.–Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    No, not a declaration of war explicitly. But as close as we’ve gotten since 1941 — and since then we had Korea, Viet Nam, Grenada, the first Gulf War, Somalia, and the Balkans.

    Nice try, though.

    J.

  8. Jay Tea says:
    December 24, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. I forget which one tried to play the “bluff” excuse.

    J.

  9. Oliver Willis says:
    December 24, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    Who made the final decision to go to war in Iraq, ill-conceived and ill-prepared. Clue: It wasn’t HRC, Joe Biden, or anyone in the House or Senate. 2nd Clue: His name rhymes with Borge Bubbleu Bush.

  10. Jay Tea says:
    December 24, 2008 at 9:00 pm

    Absolutely, Oliver. But he didn’t do it alone. He had the assent of the Congress, and a majority of both Houses voted to authorize the war. I have no problem with Bush getting the majority of the responsibility for the war (by the way, why haven’t you mentioned how things are going over there recently?), but to say that he has 100% of it is simply dishonest. It was the logical extension of official US government policy, as established in 1998 by the Iraq Regime Change Act (passed by Congress, signed by President William J. Clinton).

    But back to the main point… CNN’s journalistic malpractice is legendary. I’m a touch disappointed that it took this bit of fluff to bring it to your attention… sad.

    J.

  11. Jay Tea says:
    December 25, 2008 at 2:02 am

    Oh… and Merry Christmas!

    J.

  12. fafaroo says:
    December 25, 2008 at 2:22 am

    CNN’s journalistic malpractice is legendary.”

    Jay Tea, the idea that you think you have the standing to criticize the journalistic standards of CNN or the New York Times or any working journalist from the head ABC news on down to your local weather person is a fucking joke.

    You get basic facts wrong every time you type. Even more, you confuse opinion for fact while regularly hanging major claims on nothing more than anecdote. You depend frequently on unreliable sources, unsubstantiated claims and outright lies to make your arguments and then refuse to post retractions when this has been called to your attention. As a blogger you are, quite simply, an absolute ethical disaster.

    Whatever the sins of CNN may be, you are most definitely not the person to be pointing them out.

  13. Jay Tea says:
    December 25, 2008 at 11:38 am

    Interesting theory, fafaroo — is that related to “objective reality?” Something is only “true” and worthy of being mentioned if the speaker is sufficiently “pure” in your eyes? Because I’ve been wrong before, I am not allowed to mention when someone else is wrong?

    I don’t think so.

    NOTHING I have ever said or done comes CLOSE to CNN willfully and deliberately concealing Saddam’s atrocities during the 1990’s. I simply lack the influence that they had — my offenses are far, far less consequential than CNN did.

    And that’s not even involving Eason Jordan saying that the US military was “deliberately targeting” journalists in Iraq. This was shortly after Daniel Pearl was murdered, as I recall.

    Back to the point, though: CNN has been committing journalistic malpractice for decades. This bit about “shirtless Obama” is peanuts in that big picture.

    J.

  14. Oliver Willis says:
    December 25, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    Yeah Ive never had anything bad to say about CNN, that’s clearly why I work at Media Matters. Sheesh.

  15. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 25, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    Trying to have it both ways, Mr. Tea?

    On one hand, you excuse Mr. Bush’s awesome Iraqi adventure by reminding us that Congress failed to stop him. At the very same time, you fault CNN for it’s unwillingness to cheer loudly enough.

    You really should take more care. You’re going to throw your back out twisting around like that.

  16. Jay Tea says:
    December 26, 2008 at 4:29 am

    Oliver, I thought you joined Media Matters because you were tired of the media straying off the progressive reservation and wanted to help corral them back. At least, that’s the impression given.

    Quaker, I’d be happy if they simply reported the truth — that’s supposed to be their “prime directive.” But in the case of their cooperating with Saddam and suppressing his atrocities, they broke that rule. In the case of Eason Jordan simply making up stuff about US forces “targeting” journalists, it’s a lie (and an easily disprovable one).

    Quaker, my point in bringing up Congress’ role is to point out that Bush was, indeed, the primary force behind the war, and he is unabashedly responsible for it. As someone who agrees with him that the war was the least worst of the choices, I fault him for the errors made along the process, but not for the decision.

    The Democrats who voted for the war, though, and now oppose it need to explain their inconsistencies. People like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden voted for the war, and now oppose it. Instead, they want to pretend it never happened. The problem there is that they are now part of an administration that made a key point its opposition to the war from the outset.

    J.

  17. Jay Tea says:
    December 26, 2008 at 7:39 am

    Congratulations, Oliver. With the resources of your employer at your disposal, you’ve convincingly shown that CNN’s ineptitude is not 100% partisan.

    Funny how scads of other biases that don’t contradict your entire fabricated raison d’etre sneak past you, though:

    * The CNN anchor who asked a Democrat “how do WE respond to these Republican attacks?”

    * The New York Times running Obama’s op-ed on Iraq, then rejecting McCain’s because he refused to buy into Obama’s presuppositions and let Obama define the argument.

    * The New York Times fabricating an “affair” between McCain and a lobbyist.

    * The vast majority of the media all tacitly agreeing to cover up for John Edwards’ extramarital affair.

    * The absolutely fawning, bootlicking, sycophantic coverage of Obama at every opportunity.

    * CNN packing its “Youtube” Republican debate with Democratic shills and activists, including flying one questioner in to personally ambush the candidates.

    Let’s look at that one more closely. During a debate for the Republican nomination, CNN asked for Republican and undecided voters to put forth their questions of the candidates. 34 made the cut. 8 of them had clear, readily-found ties to Democrats — including one man who had served on the election committees of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

    Yup, that dastardly CNN.

    Sorry I don’t have better examples, but I’m just one guy. I don’t have an entire thorougly-funded tax-exempt organization at my disposal to do my homework for me.

    And sorry about the lack of links supporting what I say. I’ve noticed that when I post links, those comments tend to not get published. Ever.

    J.

  18. Jay Tea says:
    December 26, 2008 at 7:44 am

    Also, Oliver, I am curious why Obama is surrounding himself with people who 1) supported the war in Iraq, and B) haven’t offered explanations as to why their opinions have changed since they cast their votes. Bush, at least, is consistent. So am I. They have changed for no other apparent reason than political expediency, and that is the rankest form of cowardice in elected politics.

    J.

  19. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 26, 2008 at 11:55 am

    People like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden voted for the war, and now oppose it. Instead, they want to pretend it never happened.

    Well that’s just false. Ms. Clinton in particular answered for her vote extensively and you even quote her doing so–right here in this thread!

    You live in a rather malleable world, Mr. Tea. Where you live, does matter itself retain consistent properties? Or do you have to worry about your house suddenly turning into tapioca?

  20. Jay Tea says:
    December 26, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Oddly enough, Quaker, that isn’t that far off from what really happened to me a bit over a month ago. A sprinkler blew in my building and about half my apartment was flooded to the consistency of tapioca.

    And the point is Hillary did NOT answer for her vote. It was Biden who said he voted for a bluff, and never imagined that a vote authorizing the use of military force in Iraq would eventually lead to using military force in Iraq. Hillary’s explanation was that the intelligence used to back up the invasion was “false,” ignoring that it was entirely consistent with the intelligence that prompted Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 (360-38 in the House, unanimous consent in the Senate), and the president at the time to sign it.

    I think it’s fairly safe to assume that Hillary agreed with the Iraq Liberation Act. She also (reluctantly) voted for the Iraq War. What she has yet to explain is what changed between 1998 and 2002 that she was unaware of until after she voted for the war. Vague descriptions of “false intelligence” just doesn’t cut it, especially on a matter of this import.

    Unless, of course, you’re CNN. (Dragging the discussion back on topic.) To them, Democrats get considerably more slack and leeway than Republicans.

    It’s a common enough malady in the media. Pity Oliver can’t quite grasp that, but I guess we all have to make sacrifices in the name of the paycheck.

    J.

  21. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 26, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    And the point is Hillary did NOT answer for her vote.

    My apologies. I was unaware that you were in a coma for the duration of the Democratic primaries.

    I think it’s fairly safe to assume that Hillary agreed with the Iraq Liberation Act. She also (reluctantly) voted for the Iraq War. What she has yet to explain is what changed between 1998 and 2002 that she was unaware of until after she voted for the war.

    Her “support” is explained in the Congressional Record in her own words at the time of her vote. She voiced her reservations in real time. However, don’t let that get in the way of reciting valued conservative trope. It’s far more convenient to pretend whatever you like.

  22. Oliver Willis says:
    December 26, 2008 at 3:14 pm

    And sorry about the lack of links supporting what I say.
    Bwahaha!

    And also, your argument about Democrats getting more slack doesn’t hold up in light of Bill Clinton being dogged about a land deal in Arkansas for 8 years, Al Gore being called a serial liar, John Kerry’s purple heart being called into doubt, and Barack Obama being accused of being a secret muslim black militant baby killing scary black man who won’t testify in front of a nonexistent grand jury in the Blago case (this last accusation was on the supposedly liberal CNN).

    Yes, the media is liberal, and the Great Pumpkin will rise every year with the Easter Bunny and Santa. At what point will you righties give up this ruse?

    “The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures” — Bill Kristol

  23. Jay Tea says:
    December 26, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    No Media Matters links this time? Could it be because it wasn’t the mainstream media that was pushing those?

    Bill Clinton was also dogged about the Lewinsky scandal, which Newsweek had and sat on until Drudge broke it on them.

    Every major politician has been called a serial liar. In most cases, it has at least a germ of truth.

    Nearly all the mentions of the hysterical accusations about Obama in the mainstream media were either dismissive, or sourced back to Democrats. I recall several Hillary staffers having to resign after they were caught propagating them.

    On the other hand, we have CBS cheerfully falling for the incredibly inept forgeries about Bush’s Air National Guard service; the New York Times endorsing McCain then trashing him (even to the point of making shit up about him); all the dirt about Cindy McCain without once mentioning her years and years of good works; the questioning of the legality of the McCains’ adoption of their daughter; the Times’ demand of the release of the adoption records of John Roberts’ son; the questions about just who the parents of Trig Palin are; the beatification of whackjob Cindy Sheehan until she went off the reservation and started attacking Democrats; the photoshopping of Condoleezza Rice to have “snake eyes;” the constant photographing of Barack Obama positioned so that lights gave him a “halo;” Reuters caught publishing faked photos from all over the Mideast; The LA Times covering up the reporter having an affair with the Mayor; the ABC News official who openly admitted that the media was good for about a 15% advantage in the polls for Democrats; Newsweek publishing the completely bullshit story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo (that one caused quite a few deaths)…

    I could go on and on, but those are just a few that were actually committed directly by big media and came to mind readily.

    I understand how you missed all these, though. Your employer’s focus is on exposing CONSERVATIVE bias in the media. Finding that among all the liberal bias really must be a full-time job. Or several. “Needles and haystacks” comes to mind.

    J.

  24. Quaker in a Basement says:
    December 26, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    I could go on and on, but those are just a few that were actually committed directly by big media and came to mind readily.

    Really?

    Which “big media” outlet ran with dirt on Cindy McCain? Which one trafficked in speculation on Trig Palin’s parentage? Which ones “beatified” Sheehan?

    Your definition of “big media” is going to need to be really, really big.

  25. Jay Tea says:
    December 26, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Cindy McCain: New York Times, October 18, 2008.
    Trig Palin’s parentage: The Atlantic, repeated incidents by Andrew Sullivan — it’s his current obsession.
    Obama beatification with halo imagery: Time Magazine, cover, March 19, 2008; Rolling Stone, cover, March 20, 2008; Reuters, February 21 and May 31.

    That big enough for you, sport?

    J.

  26. Oliver Willis says:
    December 26, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    Could it be because it wasn’t the mainstream media that was pushing those?
    Perhaps its because Media Matters didn’t exist until 2004. See, that wasn’t hard, was it? (the NY Times was one of the major forces pushing the Whitewater story)

    Your employer’s focus is on exposing CONSERVATIVE bias in the media.
    Another load of bullshit. See, we’re not like MRC. We don’t claim to know whats in people’s heads – which is what bias claims usually boil down to. Here is the stated mission:

    Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

    You see, unlike the bias pimping on the right that you engage in, most of what MM produces requires that conservative claims be looked into and refuted when they’re clearly misinformation. No “we think Dan Rather is a closet Democrat, boogedy boogedy boogedy”.

    There is a reason in the last few years MM’s work is taken more seriously than MRC’s. MRC tells journalists “you’re a communist!”, whereas MM says “hey dummy, you got that wrong”.

    As I said above, the MSM is a stupid beast that gets led around by the nose and distracted by shiny things. You choose to believe (or at least pretend to believe) that these mistakes are part of a global conspiracy where the MSM coordinates with the DNC. The reality is that the press gets worked, and they’ve been worked pretty well by the right in order to push the right’s agenda and causes (see War, Iraq or George W. Bush, The Presidency Of).

    But continue the fantasy, it is amusing if not anything else.

  27. Oliver Willis says:
    December 26, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    And in this case “dirt” on Cindy McCain means the actual factual matter that she was addicted to pills and tried to hide it in a charity. Versus all the made up innuendo and stories calling Michelle Obama a “militant” who is a “baby mama”.

    Call me when Cindy McCain is being called “scary” on newsstands.

  28. Jay Tea says:
    December 26, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    You are an expert on Media Matters, Oliver, but you’re no expert on me. I’ve never espoused any of the grand conspiracy theories. I don’t think the overwhelming liberal bias of the media is some great plot. I think it is an “occupational hazard” that is the result of the most celebrated journalists also being outspoken liberals, causing other like-minded individuals to wish to emulate them. If I thought it was some grand conspiracy, I wouldn’t waste my time going after all the little heads of the hyda, fighting the symptoms; I’d challenge the root causes.

    Oh, and brilliant counterexample. I cite CNN, CBS, the New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, and you rebut with a cover featuring “hipster hookers,” “Our dinner with O.J. Simpson,” “Lindsay Lohan’s sexual revolution,” Katherine Heigl’s Ego Trip,” and “Stoned Students! Crumbling Campuses! Pervy Professors! America’s 50 Worst Colleges.”

    Oh, and as far as Whitewater goes… the Clintons WERE a part of it, people DID go to jail for it, and Clinton pardoned some of them. Gee, maybe there WAS something going on there worth investigating?

    More people were convicted in crimes related to Whitewater than were in the Valerie Plame case, as I recall…

    J.

  29. Jay Tea says:
    December 27, 2008 at 6:53 am

    Since you’re bringing your work home with you, Oliver, there’s something I’ve always wondered. What happens when Media Matters find some liberal “disinformation” in the media? My own theory is that you just say “well, that’s the way it’s supposed to be” and toss it in the trash can (or bit-bucket).

    I don’t blame you on focusing on the conservative misinformation, though. It’s a much smaller target, and as Clint Eastwood said, “a man’s got to know his limitations.” To go after the liberal misinformation and bias is a Augean Stable of a task.

    J.

    • Oliver Willis says:
      December 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm

      We cover conservative misinformation, if someone on the right wants to handle liberal misinformation they’re welcome to it. As I’ve noted numerous times its pretty telling about the right that instead of correcting misinformation they’re far more concerned with “bias” and just making stuff up to make Brent Bozell get some righteous indignation.

  30. Enlightened Liberal says:
    December 27, 2008 at 8:58 am

    “Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.”

    Media Matters being asked to criticize liberal misinformation is like JT being asked to tell the unvarnished truth- it’s not part of the mission. Especially rich is how MM is criticized for bias when JT “writes” for the farthest right of the right-wing ‘zines, one that is just slightly to the left of the John Birch Society.

  31. Jay Tea says:
    December 27, 2008 at 9:15 am

    EL, I’m not asking them to correct it. Or even look for it. I was just wondering what they do when they stumble across it, entirely inadvertently, in their tireless quest to get every single needle out of that haystack.

    Also, when have I ever claimed to be unbiased? I write my opinion. I usually back up that opinion with facts that helped me derive that opinion, but I never claimed to be an unbiased, completely neutral reporter of absolute facts. I am a commentator, and as such offering my opinions and biases and prejudices is part of the definition.

    Hell, the magazine is CALLED “Commentary.” It can’t get much more upfront than THAT.

    Unlike, say, CNN, the New York Times, Time, Newsweek, NBC NEWS, and the like.

    J.

  32. Jay Tea says:
    December 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Hmm… a very informative non-answer. Perhaps I should repeat the question — what do you do when you discover liberal misinformation? Stuff like the faked Bush National Guard records, or John Kerry saying he listened to Richard Nixon address the nation while he invaded Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, or Barack Obama saying that he registered for the draft between his high school graduation and first year in college, or Obama saying that there were no contacts between his people and Blagojevich over his Senate seat?

    I already know the answer — you ignore them. I am just wondering if you will admit it.

    J.

  33. Oliver Willis says:
    December 27, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Does MRC cover conservative bias? Does XBox Magazine cover the latest PS3 releases? Your framing is, as usual, prosecutorial and misguided. Not surprisingly it echoes a lot of the hate mail from the right we get. What is it about an organization that seeks to root out and debunk conservative misinformation – not bias – that upsets you so?

    And trust me, there was more than enough misinfo from the right during the 2004 campaign on John Kerry’s military record to keep us plenty busy.

  34. Jay Tea says:
    December 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    “Trust you,” Oliver? Like you’d trust me on anything. Thanks, but no thanks. I took a look at one article, and couldn’t help but laugh hysterically: you slammed the Boston Globe for not properly defending Kerry. The Globe was (and is) so far up Kerry’s butt that they knew about his polyps before the doctors did. They’ve carried his water for him for decades. Hell, Kerry’s official hagiography was written by a Globie, and when Kerry decided to release his military records (NOT publicly, as promised), that same Globe scribbler was one of the people Kerry knew he could trust to say “yup, it’s all fine and dandy!”

    I’ve cited one example where Kerry was forced to retract part of his narrative about his Vietnam career, thanks to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. (These would be the men who served the same duty Kerry did, most for considerably longer times.) Could you cite a counterpoint where the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth had to retract a factual accusation (not an opinion or a judgment, but an actual fact, like Kerry had to admit he was not listening to President Nixon say there were no US troops in Cambodia while he was in Cambodian waters in Christmas of 1968)?

    Come on. You’ve got the entire resources of your employer at your disposal. Find ONE.

    And I also enjoy how you won’t answer about what the Media Matters policy is about inadvertently-discovered “liberal disinformation.” Say, when you research something you believe is “conservative misinformation” and discover that it is true. As I said, I know what it is — you just bit-bucket it and pretend that it never happened. I am just intrigued to hear how you spin it.

    J.

    • Oliver Willis says:
      December 27, 2008 at 11:39 pm

      Could you cite a counterpoint where the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth had to retract a factual accusation
      Conservatives never admit when they are wrong. Most of it is beyond my memory now, but the Swift boat claim that they were the men who served with Kerry just wasn’t true. One of them was actually on the boat with him, and he didn’t support their most outlandish claims.

      Say, when you research something you believe is “conservative misinformation” and discover that it is true
      Then MM wouldn’t write about it, would they? In the rare case that a conservative makes his or her case using factual information, then that’s when folks are free to disagree with it but the factual accuracy isn’t up for dispute (for instance, a con who says global warming isn’t real is just blowing smoke, whereas one who concedes it is real but doesn’t believe that man has a major hand in it is someone who at least acknowledges a scientific fact and while a liberal might not agree with his conclusion at least he isn’t completely playing in the land of make-believe). MM deals in facts, I don’t understand why this confuses you.

  35. Jay Tea says:
    December 28, 2008 at 12:19 am

    Oh, yeah, “didn’t serve on the same boat with him.” That was a fun one. Swift boat crews consisted of a single officer and several enlisted, so NATURALLY no officer could have “served in the same boat with him.” It’s not that dissimilar from saying a fighter pilot can’t comment on a fellow pilot’s performance, because they weren’t in the same aircraft — ignoring that most fighters are single-seaters.

    And gee, Oliver, if you can’t cite actual examples of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth actually being provably wrong, then perhaps you shouldn’t have brought them up. “They were liars, take my word for it, just don’t ask for details?” Damn, that’s weak.

    I understand perfectly what happened here — you’ve got your own little constructed reality where the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth were lying, partisan hacks, and their charges were all proven false. Unfortunately, you’re the only one who remembers it that way — as I noted, the one time there was a serious examination of presented facts, it was Kerry who had to back down from his account.

    It’s the same shared fantasy that ignores other inconvenient truths like the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, the actual text and roll call of the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force In Iraq, and countless other examples where history has proven inconvenient.

    Too bad that there are folks around who can actually say “hey, that’s not what happened” and have ready access to proof.

    J.

    • Oliver Willis says:
      December 28, 2008 at 3:23 am

      You’re going to go around in circles on this forever, aren’t you? You said to point out an instance of the Swift Boat guys admitting they were wrong. There are none, because like most conservatives who lie they don’t admit culpability. I pointed you to numerous instances of them lying, shading the truth, or being dishonest.

      You exhibit the same mentality that ignores the fact that despite the Iraqi Liberation Act, the authorization for use of force, etc. There is only one person on this planet who made the final decision to go to war with Iraq: George W. Bush. Were the Democrats right to give him the power? No, and I said so at the time. But George Bush chose to invade Iraq. George Bush chose to do it on the cheap. George Bush chose to keep Rumsfeld and Rumsfeld’s “strategy” in place until the 2006 election.

      For so long conservatives have existed in this world where they all agree with each other that 1+1=3. Suddenly a few of us speak up and say it ain’t so and that really bothers you guys.

  36. Jay Tea says:
    December 28, 2008 at 7:49 am

    Oliver, I specifically asked for times they were PROVEN wrong, not ADMITTED wrong. Kerry admitted he was wrong because someone looked at a calendar and realized that there was NO WAY his “Christmas in Cambodia” story was possible — Nixon wasn’t president on Christmas Day 1968, and could not have been giving any sort of presidential statement.

    You have gotten tons of mileage out of saying the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth were liars and smeared Kerry. Funny you can’t cite an actual example of it, though.

    And I’ve said repeatedly that Bush was the main factor in the decision to overthrow Saddam. (Which you haven’t talked about for a while — could it be because things are really, really looking good?) But he did not act entirely unilaterally — he had, as mandated by the Constitution and law, the assent of Congress. Perhaps it would have been wiser if the Vice-President Elect and Secretary Of State-Designate had pulled an Obama and voted “present,” but instead they chose to back Bush and the war.

    I dunno where you get the idea that I’m trying to deny Bush’s role in the Iraq War. Probably from the same place you’re getting the “Swift Boat Veterans were liars” and “Bush deliberately outed Valerie Plame” crocks.

    J.

Oliver Willis

Contact
Email: owillis@gmail.com
Twitter
Facebook
Flickr
AIM: oliverwill
Huffington Post Columns
Media Matters Blog Entries