Mark Tapscott, writing in the Washington Examiner, the free newspaper that litters the subway that has usurped the Washington Times as the premier wingnut newspaper.
These milestones remind that what we’ve seen “nuthin’ of so far during the Obama administration is the aggressive accountability journalism relentlessly aimed at the Bush administration during the eight years prior to the ascension of President Obama.
You remember that accountability?
When the press pushed Al Gore to concede?
When the press cheerleaded us into Iraq, putting Bush administration propaganda on A1 of the NY Times?
When the press gave millions of dollars in free air time to the Swift Boat liars?
When the NY Times delayed warrantless wiretapping stories until after the election?
When the press refused to provide any serious, probing scrutiny of the Bush policies that lead to the Great Recession and near-collapse of the global economy?
Yes, that accountability.
What was it again that the Swift Boat liars lied about?
Well, serving with John Kerry, for one. And much more.
John O’Neil was quite specific that he did not serve with John Kerry but took over the command of the same patrol boat after Kerry took his three purple hearts back home to the states.
He thought John Kerry’s claim that that American troops were committing war crimes in Vietnam “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” was not the truth.
In fact to quote O’Neil “that John Kerry slandered America’s military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist.”
He couldn’t abide the thought of Kerry becoming Commander in Chief after his slanderous comments and possibly treasonable behavior in Paris.
So you are mistaken on point number one regarding serving with John Kerry, perhaps could you expand on “much more”.
“the aggressive accountability journalism relentlessly aimed at the Bush administration”
Yeah! Remember when the Press relentlessly assailed the Republican Bush administration for their complicity in War Crimes?
oh, wait, that didn’t happen…
Remember when the Press relentlessly assailed the Republican Bush administration for their complicity in Torture Crimes?
oh, wait, that didn’t happen…
Remember when the Press relentlessly assailed the Republican Bush administration for their complicity in Illegal Surveillance?
oh, wait, that didn’t happen…
Remember when the Press relentlessly assailed the Republican Bush administration for their complicity in Looting the US Treasury?
oh, wait, that didn’t happen…
Remember when the Press relentlessly assailed the Republican Bush administration for their complicity in lying US into the Iraq War?
oh, wait, that didn’t happen…
Remember when the Press relentlessly assailed the Republican Bush administration for ignoring clear warnings before 9/11?
oh, wait, that took over six years to bring up…
Remember when the Press deceitfully pretended to hold the Republican Bush administration accountable?
… Yeah, that totally happened.
Geez, are we still arguing about the Swift Boat liars? That arguments already been had. You lost, cons. They are frauds.
This is how the con troll mind works. They rehash the same discredited nonsense for years, and soon blogs are discussing their talking points. Already, this thread isn’t about the blog post, it is about a discredited right-wing front group.
Newsflash- cons don’t want to learn. No amount of “convincing” is going to get them to admit they are wrong. Because they are a. stupid or b. disingenuous or c. both.
Just pat them on the head and comment on the main post.
Totally off topic…
theonion.com/content/news_briefs/obama_revises_campaign
And I remember the Cons saying people wouldn’t be able to mock Obama. Hmmm…. I guess that’s one more thing they are wrong about.
Well Enlightened Liberal,
Ollie mentions the Swift Boat guys in his initial post. He was dead wrong about his first point. Which of the other quotes was a lie?
The one where John O’Neil said he commanded Kerry’s old boat?
Or the one where Kerry said that “on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.”
Or was it this quote from O’Neil “that John Kerry slandered America’s military by inventing or repeating grossly exaggerated claims of atrocities and war crimes in order to advance his own political career as an antiwar activist.”
All of these are sourced from John O’Neil, which do you dispute?
O’neil and company claimed they served “with Kerry” only one of them did. That was the first lie, followed by many others.
There’s a reason why to “swift boat” now means to run a dishonest political smear campaign.
All of these problems were discussed years ago, “Amused Observer.” Please look at the archives to find the proper debunking. Anyway, it’s funny how the news media has found its investigative abilities now that a Democrat is in the White House. I guess they are disappointed that they didn’t get White House barbecues promised by McCain.
Oliver, if you don’t wanna re-argue the Swift Boat Veterans, then maybe you shouldn’t bring them up.
I know you don’t want to remember this, but exactly one claim of substance from either side was proven to be a “lie” — and that was John Kerry’s claim to have spent Christmas of 1969 in Cambodia listening to Prsesident Nixon claim that there were no US troops in Cambodia.
On the other stuff… it seems to me that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said that they “served WITH John Kerry.” Kerry spun that to “served ON THE SAME BOAT,” which was remarkably convenient — the boats were small and only had a single officer per boat, so no officers ever served on the same boat with Kerry.
Uh-oh, I better watch out… “Newsy” is in full “link-whore to my hideously malformed blog for proof of my standard cut-and-paste talking points!!!!!” mode.
“Newsy’s” comments ought to come with a mandatory warning label: “USERS SHOULD DON THEIR PERIL-SENSITIVE SUNGLASSES BEFORE FOLLOWING ANY LINKS TO HAVENWORKS.COM.”
I wonder if Obama’s nationalized health care will cover injuries caused by “Newsy’s” site? “Sorry, Mr. Willis, but you should have known better than to clock on that link. I’m afraid your gouging out of your own eyes isn’t covered. All we can give you is this ‘hey, look on the bright side!’ sympathy card from Vice-President Biden.”
J.
Oliver,
So it’s not John O’Neils claim to running Kerry’s old boat,
and it’s not John Kerry’s claim that atrocities were a routine event with full officer awareness all the way up the chain,
and it’s not O’Neil feeling that his honor and character had been maligned by Kerry’s atrocity remarks,
and it’s not O’Neils claim that Kerry made his atrocity remarks to burnish his political credentials with the war protest movement.
Those things are all true but if I go to the propaganda archives from your dayjob, you thoughtfully provided a link to, I’ll find other things said by the Swift Boat group that are not true?
Sleazy right wingers have done “Swift Boaters” a grave disservice by making “Swift Boaters” synonymous with “Political Liars”.
Swift boating Republican John O’Neill was an especially malignant liar.
The failure of the media to accurately report that swift boat liars like John O’Neil were telling lies was a shame on the media.
Even Republican John McCain dishonored himself by sucking up to the disgraceful swift boaters.
And now the sleazy swift boater’s CRC Public Relations propaganda group are trying to “Swift boat” health care and are even branching out with the sleazy Judicial Confirmation Network to attack Judicial nominees.
Correction: “Swift boaters” are synonymous with “Sleazy Political Liars.”
It will be interesting to see if the “Press” learned from it’s failures and will recognize that everything connected to the “Swift boaters”, their CRC Public Relations propaganda group, and Judicial Confirmation Network are just unethical slime machines.
Three words, “Newsy:”
“Christmas in Cambodia.”
If you want some more fun bits from John “Reporting For Duty!” Kerry, trace the evolution of his story about what happened with his medals.
Or here’s another fun quote from John Kerry, this one from his Congressional testimony in 1971:
“…they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war…”
J.
“1971″
Was that about the same time Republican Bush was too drunk to report for duty in Alabama when he was supposed to be serving in the National Guard?
Republican Bush went out of his way to evade service in the Viet Nam war by getting his daddies friends to not just give him a short cut into the National Guard, but also, to make double sure he would never see combat, his daddies friends sent him to Alabama to learn how to fly planes that they knew would never be flown in combat.
Republican Bush couldn’t even show up for his medical exams, though I’ll concede that the rumors of Republican Bush being too coked up to pass his mandatory medical exams were less verifiable than some of the “Swift boat” liar’s fictions.
Meanwhile, Democratic leader Kerry was boating up a river during the Viet Nam war and actually saw combat.
And right wing cowards like yourself and the malignantly sleazy liar “Amused Observer” continue to create entire alternate realities that smear genuine combat vets.
That’s the larger truth about the right wing “Swift boaters”, they smeared every combat vet in this country with their putrid dishonorable lies.
Right wingers lie and use American troops like toy soldiers.
Shameful.
And now right wing sociopaths openly advocate for war crimes and torture crimes even after having lied US into a reckless and unnecessary war.
It’s sick.
But with a complicit, complacent corporate media to push right winger’s lies and conceal the truth, right wing war criminals may get off scot-free.
Right wingers have certainly gotten a long free ride so far, more than just the last eight years, it’s running on to 30+ years now.
Wow, you never know what will trigger one of “Newsy’s” long-winded, desperate diversions. In this case, it was a simple four-digit number.
Anything to actually responding to points made, huh, “Newsy?”
You might have missed this, but George W. Bush never served on a Swift boat, and never claimed to have done so.
J.
“We just look to see who drives you into the most inane diversions”
You don’t have points, “Jay Tea”, just diversions.
“Jay Tea”: “We just look to see who drives you into the most inane diversions”
Those things are all true
Except they aren’t, but keep trying to swift-boat them into reality, I guess.
Mark Tapscott’s a real Bircher’s Bircher with his librul mediuh talking points
Oliver, I quoted Kerry’s testimony about atrocities — most of which were quotes he recycled from frauds, using his own decorated status to give them credibility. A simple waving of your hands doesn’t change that.
J.
JT, I served in the US Army during the Vietnam War.
Americans committed atrocities there. It was hardly a secret. Colin Powell whitewashed My Lai.
Where were YOU in 1967?
This goes to the heart of the left/right divide. The right likes to fool itself that (unless they were liberals) no American has ever done anything wrong ever. In the conservative version of history, no atrocities ever happened in Vietnam. They so believe this that they attack Kerry for his role in acknowledging these atrocities that did in fact happen.
Liberals, on the other hand, acknowledge America’s faults and seek to fix them. Thats why liberals were at the front of movements like civil rights and the antiwar movement in Vietnam, Iraq, etc. because we don’t think you should act like a phony 1950s nuclear family and pretend that Daddy isn’t drinking.
“Those things are all true
Except they aren’t, but keep trying to swift-boat them into reality, I guess.”
Well Oliver that quoted line is from my post. It addresses 4 specific points which you claim aren’t true. Would you validate your claim by pointing out specifically which point is false.
Repack,
Are you a war criminal?
Oh gods, here we go again with John Kerry. Hey wingnuts, it’s 2009 ok? It’s not 2004 anymore. I know you losers just love to live in those precious memories, back when you called anyone who questioned Bush a traitor. Good times, eh?
We have a really weird set of debates about things like Cambodia too. Like, whether or not John Kerry was across the Cambodian border during the time that Nixon accelerated LBJ’s bombing of the peasantry into carpet bombing that handed power to the lunatic Khmer Rouge guerrillas.
But by all means, let’s make sure that ‘debates’ which mention Cambodia steer toward the Shit Floats Vets for Dupes agenda.
Burn, take it up with Oliver; he brought up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
El Cid, Kerry spent Christmas of 1968 in Viet Nam. Richard Nixon didn’t become president until January, 1969 — Kerry’s story isn’t just false, it’s flatly impossible, much like Joe Biden saying that when the stock market crashed in 1929, President Roosevelt went on TV to reassure the nation.
Repack, for most of 1967 I was waiting to be born.
Oliver, I’m not saying that atrocities didn’t happen. I’m saying that the guys who fed Kerry their stories were proven to be mostly frauds. But I forget — you’re the side of “fake but accurate.”
J.
Please look up the LIFE magazine photos of My Lai and then tell me atrocities didn’t happen in Vietnam.As Oliver said, you can’t change your errant behavior until you acknowledge it.
Because a 60-year old Kerry misstated (36 years later) what administration sent him to Cambodia doesn’t mean he wasn’t there.
And claiming that a Vet who has been awarded a medal by his superiors is lying is disgusting.
Did Audie Fucking Murphy REEEEALLY deserve that battlefield commission? Enquiring minds want to know.
Bruce, so you’re going the “fake but accurate” route here, too?
Yes, Americans committed atrocities in Viet Nam. But the specific men Kerry quoted were frauds — and Kerry didn’t care.
Kerry said he listened to Nixon on the radio denying Americans were in Cambodia when Kerry himself was ferrying a CIA agent into Cambodia on Christmas eve, when Johnson was president.
Kerry also made a huge point of throwing his medals over the fence at the White House at a protest, then years later someone noticed that Kerry had his medals on display in his office. Then the story became that Kerry had thrown some other, unnamed vet’s medals, not his own.
Whatever Kerry did or did not do in Viet Nam, that does not change the fact that he has lied and bullshitted and fabricated ever since he came back. And, quite possibly, committed treason — holding unauthorized meetings with North Vietnamese officials while still serving as an officer in the United States Naval Reserve.
J.
Whatever, Tea.
The fact that Kerry is a blowhard doesn’t obviate the point of Oliver’s post — that the so-called “liberal media” has long been in the tank for MSM conservatism –at all.
Repack,
Are you a war criminal?
No, I was a medic. My only patients were members of the US Army. If I ever killed anyone, it was an accident, but I’m not aware that I did.
It’s not like no one else in the Army ever said anything about anything in my presence. If you do not believe US troops committed atrocities in Vietnam, you are a fool.
Kerry said he listened to Nixon on the radio denying Americans were in Cambodia when Kerry himself was ferrying a CIA agent into Cambodia on Christmas eve, when Johnson was president.
jay Tea, please Kerry exact quote.
Whatever Kerry did or did not do in Viet Nam, that does not change the fact that he has lied and bullshitted and fabricated ever since he came back.
Jay Tea, you do, of course, understand that whether or not Kerry “lied and bullshitted and fabricated” anything about his time in Viet Nam would, in fact, be entirely changed by what Kerry actually “did or did not do in Viet Nam,” right?
fafaroo, here’s the quote:
This is how he described it to the Boston Herald in 1979: “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies. . . . The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.”
In 1986 Mr. Kerry argued on the Senate floor against U.S. support for the Nicaraguan contras, again citing the 1968 Christmas in Cambodia and “the president of the United States telling the American people I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared–seared–in me.” In a 1992 interview with the Associated Press the story came back: “By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry’s patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia.”
Trouble is, the person who appears to have been wrong here about Mr. Kerry’s location was not the president–who was Lyndon Johnson, not Nixon, by the way–but Mr. Kerry himself. His commanding officers all testify to this fact, as do men who were on his boat at the time. And so now, reluctantly, does the Kerry campaign.
Source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005483
J.
Interesting quotes Jay Tea.
Not a one of them supports your claim that Kerry said he was listening to Nixon on the radio at the very same time he was in Cambodia:
Sad,
“This goes to the heart of the left/right divide. The right likes to fool itself that (unless they were liberals) no American has ever done anything wrong ever. In the conservative version of history, no atrocities ever happened in Vietnam. They so believe this that they attack Kerry for his role in acknowledging these atrocities that did in fact happen”
No one has said that isolated incidents of brutality did not occur, after all it is War We are talking about, with all of it’s inhumanity and pain. Wars are fought by men, imperfect, scared, trying to survive. The left you see uses these incidents as a bludgeon to force an ideolology not to “fix” anything.
The entire Winter Soldier affair was the blatent use of lies to propel a political career. Talk with Steve Pitkin about the stories that were used to bring discredit upon the USA for purely political reasons by a hack who used the system to his advantage.
“Thats why liberals were at the front of movements like civil rights”
You mean liberals are Republicans like Dr King? And his father perhaps? True Democrats like JFK voted against the 1957 civil rights act as did Al Gore’s father and RFK had him wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist.
So don’t sell that shit to Me. Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Not that it was perfect it did lead to improved legislation expanding it. It was a Democrat who led the longest one person filibuster in Senate history against it.
“into carpet bombing that handed power to the lunatic Khmer Rouge guerrillas.”
Troublesome statement depending on who you read on the subject, of course if your goal is USA bad then Ben Kiernan is your man. If you take a more believable line of reasoning that the forced resettlement and assimilation of the Khmer loeu in 1965 provided Pol Pot with tons of willing recruits.
That shoddy mistreatment and the assistance of the North Vietnamese after the 1968 start of the insurgency led to the eventual downfall of Cambodia’s government. Craig Etcheson believes that Us bombing may have been a contributing factor to recruitment. It was not the overriding factor in the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
As for this comments;
“And claiming that a Vet who has been awarded a medal by his superiors is lying is disgusting.
Did Audie Fucking Murphy REEEEALLY deserve that battlefield commission? Enquiring minds want to know.”
How about lying about the circumstances to receive the medal then use it to escape your commitment. Then lie about your fellow vets to your personal gain. Lie again about throwing them over the fence in protest. Audie Murphy? Why would drag a Real War Hero into this?
Looks like I misremembered the finest detail, fafaroo… Kerry said it happened at the same time, not that he heard it on the radio. Still, it’s a hell of a lot closer to reality than Kerry’s fabrications.
J.
Still, it’s a hell of a lot closer to reality than Kerry’s fabrications.
And so fake but accurate.
Nice, Jay Tea.
You’re a complete moron.
I noticed Olliver won’t back up his position on my post when push comes to shove.
Repack,
It’s good that you weren’t a war criminal. Being a medic looks like it was one tough job from the popular media represntations. I would be extremely surprised if there were not atrocities committed.
In your opinion were they a routine occurance or more of an anomaly?
fafaroo, I was mostly right. Kerry said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, while President Nixon said there were no Americans in Cambodia. I said that he heard Nixon say it live. I was mistaken.
Kerry was full of shit.
J.
fafaroo, I was mostly right.
So you’re saying that Kerry was never in Cambodia, period. Right?
OK, ‘wingers. You want some lies from the Swift Boat Liars? Let’s begin with William Schachte who claimed he was on the skimmer with John Kerry when he received the “scratch” that would later inspire those hi-larious purple heart bandaids passed around at the 2004 Republican convention.
No one has ever come forward to support Mr. Schachte’s claim. The other two men who were, indeed, on the skimmer say Schachte was not aboard.
What shall we conclude about Mr. Schachte’s claim?
Well, Quaker, I’d say that we conclude that Schachte’s claim is unverified, and questionable. Not disproven, however.
Kerry’s claim to have been in Cambodia on Christmas eve, 1968, while Nixon was president, though… that’s just flat out impossible.
And Kerry’s account of what happened to his medals is utterly implausible.
J.
Quaker, lemme rephrase that: I’d say that Schachte’s claim is seriously challenged, but impossible to prove or disprove.
Pity Kerry never took any steps to definitively settle the questions, such as publicly releasing his full military records (as he repeatedly promised to do) or suing the Swift Boat Veterans for slander and libel…
J.
Six incidents where the press was not sufficiently anti – Bush to please you?
I would say the exception proves the rule.
Eight years – six examples …
C’mon!
And let’s not forget that the Press had Anointed the One by July 4, 2008.
He’s full of shit. The CIA at the time warned that U.S. bombing was driving the peasantry into the hands of the lunatic Khmer Rouge.
The Nixon administration caused the Cambodian genocide by handing power to the Khmer Rouge via carpet bombing the peasantry. Before the U.S. began bombing Cambodia, the KR were at most a marginal force; as warned by their own CIA at the time, with escalating LBJ’s bombing to carpet bombing, Nixon completely paved the way to the guerrilla’s takeover.
The premiere scholars of the Cambodian genocide here assemble the record and impact of U.S. involvement.
Frank DiSalle: “Six incidents where the press was not sufficiently anti – Bush to please you?”
If the media were unbiased, they would have been ‘anti-Bush’ the entire time. Bush is a huge, massive fuck-up who failed at practically everything.
“I would say the exception proves the rule.”
You are misusing this saying.
‘Free on Tuesdays’ is the exception that proves that you normally have to pay money for whatever service or product that was being described. It is the example that proves there is a rule.
“Eight years – six examples …”
Can you come up with six counter-examples?
“And let’s not forget that the Press had Anointed the One by July 4, 2008.”
Bullshit. The press attacked Obama over Rev. Wright countless times.
How often did you hear the name Keating during the election?
Kerry’s claim to have been in Cambodia on Christmas eve, 1968, while Nixon was president, though… that’s just flat out impossible.
First of all, Jay Tea, provide us with the quote in which Kerry says exactly that, that he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 when Nixon was president. Where is that quote? That isn’t what he says in any of the quotes you’ve so far provided.
Second, if Kerry claimed he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968, but, as it turns out, he was only near the border but he was in Cambodia on missions later during his tour, how is that not simply a mistaken memory?
In other words, how is that not Kerry being “mostly right”?
So Jay Tea, either come up with the exact quote that proves your statement or tell us the Kerry was never in Cambodia, at all.
Otherwise, you haven’t got a leg to stand on. You’ve already claimed “fake but accurate” and “being mostly accurate” as valid defenses for your own obvious errors.
And yet Kerry isn’t entitled to the same excuses as you?
So as always with you, Jay Tea, it comes down to put up or shut up.
Well, Quaker, I’d say that we conclude that Schachte’s claim is unverified, and questionable. Not disproven, however.
“Unverified and questionable”? Good. We agree that it’s probably a lie.
OK, how about this one? John O’Neill, on Hardball, claimed that Kerry made a speech comparing Ho Chi Minh to George Washington. He further claimed to have read the speech and that the text of the speech was in his book, Unfit for Command.
In fact, the speech was not in the book. O’Neill had never read the speech because no written text of any such speech exists. And of course, contrary to what Mr. O’Neill told Chris Matthews and television viewers, the speech was NOT in his book.
I can keep this up for a long time, Mr. Tea. The Swift Boat Liars gave us plenty of material to work with.
If the other two guys on the skimmer say Schacte wasn’t on the boat, what would be sufficient evidence to make his claim “disproven?”
So we have a lot of crazy right-wingers who like to deny reality.
Liars are specific about events 40 years ago. People telling the truth have a fuzzy recolection at best.
Lmao, nobody in reality other than you two morons still argue about the Swiftboaters. So yes, you’re lying little piece of shit scumbags. You know it. You just don’t give a shit because you’re vermin.
And let’s not forget that the Press had Anointed the One by July 4, 2008.
Why do you hate America and our President so much, Frankie?
I would say the exception proves the rule.
Well, I’d say those were pretty important stories. Of course, since I guess you don’t care what happens in Iraq, I can see why you would disagree.
Ok, then, how about 6 examples where “The Press” was TOO “anti-Bush”?
Pity Kerry never took any steps to definitively settle the questions
So you’re saying John Kerry is a weenie? That’s a startling revelation.
Zython,
Is it your belief that the press has treated Bush and Obama in an evenhanded manner?
“Why do you hate America and our President so much, Frankie?”
It is a quite rational position to deeply love your country and yet despise our current President’s policies.
If one has an understanding of what has made this country different from other nations and what has made us prosper then Obama’s moves in the direction of socialism and his willingness to subvert the rule of law are troubling. His willingness to handicap our ability to compete in the world economy and the spector of inflation caused by the unprecedented level of government debt he is willing to undertake is a matter of grave concern to those who have studied the effects of similar policies in the past.
I quite seriously doubt that Frank has anything but a very deep concern for his country.
Obama’s moves in the direction of socialism and his willingness to subvert the rule of law
Whuh? Subvert the what? What are you nattering about now, AO?
Quaker,
I was speaking specifically about the changes in status between secured and unsecured creditors in the “Save Detroit” automobile crisis.
It is a quite rational position to deeply love your country and yet despise our current President’s policies.
Funny, wasn’t that way 5 months ago. You guys have been doing it for the past 7 years, so I’m doing it for the next 70.
I quite seriously doubt that Frank has anything but a very deep concern for his country.
If you gave a shit about the mess we’re in, why did you make it in the first place?
I was speaking specifically about the changes in status between secured and unsecured creditors
I see. What law was subverted?
Quaker,
Under bankruptcy law secured creditors claims have precedence over unsecured creditors. Sort of like the 1st mortgage must be satisfied before the 2nd mortgage is. Obama has turned this around in the auto bankrupcy with his plan to compensate the unsecured union pension funds ahead of and to a larger degree then the secured bondholders.
Zython,
You found out my secret. I ruined the economy. Sorry about that.
So back to that first question, is it your claim that the media has treated Obama and Bush in an even handed manner?
AO, I ask again: what law was subverted?
The government made the hedge funds and banks an offer. That offer was, after some bluffing, accepted.
If any of this was illegal, should we be expecting lawsuits in the near future?
Quaker,
If you don’t see a problem with that I think it unlikely anything I say will make a difference to you. Yes I think it quite likely that lawsuits will be filed by some of the disenfranchised (cheated) bondholders. When laws only mean what they say until the president changes his mind we are headed down a slippery slope.
I spent an entire summer working with people debunking the Swift Boat lies, I’m loathe to do so all over again. My point from the post remains as it was – these lies were transmitted by a compliant press, the same compliant press that still to this day insists on bending over backwards for conservative lies.
So back to that first question, is it your claim that the media has treated Obama and Bush in an even handed manner?
More or less. The media tends to reflect the views of the moderates of the country.
When laws only mean what they say until the president changes his mind we are headed down a slippery slope.
You keep making the accusation. Now deliver the goods. Here’s a headstart: 11 U.S.C……?
What law is being subverted? Which part of the Bankruptcy Code hasn’t been honored to the letter? Either you have an answer or you’re blustering.
Ah, I love the smell of defeated flop sweat in the morning, don’t you?
Oliver,
LOL, We are talking not just about the credibility of John O’Neil but of you Oliver Willis.
Now your post of 5/30@ 8:09 references my post of 5/29 @ 10:52. You dispute the facts of that post.
On 5/30 @ 12:05 I call bullshit and ask you to point out which of the 4 specific points first made in the 5/29 10:52 post are not true.
You never do that but instead mention that you are loathe to discuss the subject all over again. The topic would not have risen had you not brought it up in the first place Oliver.
If I take the most charitable view, you are simply mistaken in your posts and never actually comprehended what was in them, merely did a quick cut and paste with a snarky reply. A less charitqble view, in light of your employment as a propaganda professional, is that you knew better and are lying.
Quaker,
I never knew you were an expert on bankruptcy law. Please explain to this laymen how the the positions of secured and unsecured creditors are commonly handled.
I never knew you were an expert on bankruptcy law. Please explain to this laymen how the the positions of secured and unsecured creditors are commonly handled.
Oh no you don’t. I like the goalposts just fine where you put ‘em the first time. “Subverting the rule of…” what law, AO? You can’t seem to say.
Either you have an answer or you’re blustering.
Bluster it is!
Quaker,
Your circular logic can be wearying. sigh Now this isn’t just my opinion but the opinion of a distinquished professor of law, Richard A. Epstein. Perhaps now you can offer us the benefit your own wisdom, providing illumination upon this subject instead of just, well I guess blustering would be the term, about it.
“On claim priority, unsecured creditors come at the bottom of the bankruptcy totem pole. The basic rule of credit transactions distributes the net assets first to secured creditors in the order of their priority. First mortgages are normally paid in full before second, and lower mortgagees receive anything, in order, on their loans. Unsecured creditors of all types have an equal claim regardless of the time they perfected their claims. But they receive their first dime only after secured creditors have been paid in full.”
If you so desire you may go to the link below and read the entire opinion. In which the author castigates Obama for his interference in this matter and touches on possible consequences of his meddling.
http://politics.randomplayground.net/2009/05/14/nervous-secured-creditors-facing-demotion-sell-out-to-speculators-who-are-better-able-to-handle-that-newly-created-sovereign-risk/
AO:
Is that the old bankruptcy law or the new one?
Your circular logic can be wearying. sigh
Circular logic?
AO: Obammy is subverting the rule of law!
Q: What law?
AO: Some law. One that I think might exist.
Q: Which one?
AO: Why don’t you tell us?
Q: No, really. Which law are you talking about?
AO: Circular logic!
AO, the article you link also fails to cite any law that has been subverted. If the rights of secured creditors are written in law, why can’t you point me to that law?
This is not complicated.
“The premiere scholars of the Cambodian genocide here assemble the record and impact of U.S. involvement.”
“He’s full of shit”
Lol, What a tool how about a brief bio of Craig Etcheson;
“Between December 1994 and January 1998, he held the academic post of Associate Research Scientist at Yale University’s Center for International and Area Studies. While at Yale University, he served as Program Manager for Yale’s Cambodian Genocide Program from 1994 through 1996, and as Acting Director of the program during 1997. Etcheson was also a principal founder of the Documentation Center of Cambodia in Phnom Penh, serving as its Director in 1995 and 1996, and continuing as an Advisor to the Center since 1997.”
He worked with and ran the very source you put forth.
I would say this makes him…not full of shit.
But you …maybe.
LOL Quaker,
Is it your position that the rights of secured and unsecured creditors are not prioritised by US law? I know murder is illegal but I can’t give you the specific number of the law.
You are just being argumenative and blowing smoke.
Is it your position that the rights of secured and unsecured creditors are not prioritised by US law?
It is my position that only blustering knownothings throw around overheated phrases like “subverting the rule of law” when they can’t identify a law that has been subverted.
I can continue with this for quite a long time, you know.
Yes I’m sure you can. I suppose it is because of people like you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions
. I suppose it is because of people like you that the road to hell is paved with good intentions
Well I’ll have to concede the advantage to you on that one. I have no clue what you mean by that.
Right wing eliminationist “Amused Observer”: “When laws only mean what they say until the president changes his mind we are headed down a slippery slope.”
Do you mean like how Republican President Bush committed Torture Crimes and War Crimes by claiming that his lawyer gave him a permission exempting him from the law?
Or do you mean like when Republican President Bush claimed he could ignore the Laws written by our Legislative Branch by writing unconstitutional signing statements?
Or are you referring to Republican President Bush’s illegal surveillance on American citizenry?
Oh, wait, right wingers are okay with torture crimes, war crimes illegal surveillance, and even shredding of the Constitution as long as their corporate masters can keep looting US.
“Subvert the rule of law . . .” AO, you no fucking clue what you are talking about. How is renegotiating the contracts subverting the rule of law? It’s done all the time in private hands, and in bankruptcy court, and it’s NOT ILLEGAL if everyone agrees to it. If you are so paranoid to think that somehow Obama is doing it by fiat, i.e., simply by telling GM’s secured creditors that they must take a haircut, then you are seriously misinformed.
The threat was that if you don’t you may get one in bankruptcy court, which is what happened. How is this “subverting the rule of law?” As a former bankruptcy lawyer I’m pretty familiar with these “rules of law”. I don’t see any subversion. As far as I know, Obama didn’t say, “I don’t care what the statutes or common law have to say about secured creditors and bondholders.”
Better trolls, please.
Reverter,
You sound like just the man to explain if there were any irregularities in the position between secured and unsecured creditors in this mess. Please continue.
“Amused Observer” throws out red herrings and demands “Fetch”.
Classic right wing nonsense.