Joe Scarborough Lies About Media Identifying Judges
Tweet
Let’s try and slay this one quickly. This morning conservative Joe Scarborough claimed that the media doesn’t identify judges as being appointed by 
Clinton, but do so with Bush judges. HotAir, agreeing with him, posts the video here. Except – as usual with conservatives – this is untrue.
For instance:
Following her decision to place an injunction on certain parts of Arizona’s immigration law, right-wing media have attacked Judge Susan Bolton by suggesting she is a partisan who was “bought by” the Obama administration. However, Judge Bolton, a registered Independent, is widely respected, and has recently been praised by Arizona Republicans Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. Jon Kyl — who recommended her nomination to then-Pres. Bill Clinton in 2000.
Fox Nation: “Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law.” The Fox Nation suggested that Bolton was partisan, by posting a FoxNews.com article under the headline “Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Ariz. Immigration Law.”
Drudge suggests partisanship with headline “Clinton appointee made ruling.” On July 29, Drudge linked to an AP article on Bolton’s ruling with the headline “Clinton appointee made ruling…”
And here’s the NYT, yesterday:
Only two weeks earlier, Judge Norman K. Moon of Federal District Court in nearby Lynchburg, Va., found precisely the opposite. “Far from ‘inactivity,’ ” wrote Judge Moon, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, “by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance.” A second Clinton-appointed judge has upheld the law as well.
The thing about conservatives is they feel free to make false statements because fellow conservatives have no interest in factual data if it furthers the right-wing agenda. If it pushes their line, they’re willing to lie until the cows come home.
UPDATE: Ed Morrissey has updated his post.
44 Responses to “Joe Scarborough Lies About Media Identifying Judges”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Are conservatives aware that the internet is a searchable database that they can use to confirm or disprove their “hunches” or do they just not care?
fafaroo,
Them toobz is confyusin’.
Fafaroo:
“Are conservatives aware that the internet is a searchable database that they can use to confirm or disprove their “hunches” or do they just not care?”
The Internet is a bunch of interconnected networks.
A search engine is a searchable database.
Of course you would know this if you followed your own advice.
I stand corrected by the guy who watched soldiers’ bodies unloaded from military planes every night during the Bush presidency.
You and Joe S. have something in common, Suicidal. You both decided something was true without any actual attempt to verify it because it felt true to you. This is all that either of you needed to inflate your vast conspiracies of a left wing media out to destroy conservatives.
Curious that your fantasies both turned on the media, isn’t it, Suicidal.
You both decided something was true without any actual attempt to verify it because it felt true to you.
Ever heard of the pot and the kettle?
Now my statement wasn’t as well stated as it should have been, but I do know that for several consecutive weeks during the Bush administration I saw what you and others claimed never fucking happened or impossible. I even provided a link validating it.
What makes your statement on the Internet any better? You felt it was true without validating it.
I knew it was false because, I have spent more time on networking and the Internet than Oliver has on blogging.
I just find it hilarious you are pointing fingers at me and Joe and not even realizing your own hipocracy.
“I do know that for several consecutive weeks during the Bush administration”
You mean during the time the Bush administration explicitly banned photos or videos at Dover Airfield?
Fucking simpleton.
Jaim I didnt ever say Dover did I? You do know that the Military has multiple bases with runways, right?
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A23
“A Pentagon spokeswoman said the military-wide policy actually dates from about November 2000 — the last days of the Clinton administration — but it apparently went unheeded and unenforced, as images of caskets returning from the Afghanistan war appeared on television broadcasts and in newspapers until early this year. Though Dover Air Force Base, which has the military’s largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, others “may not have been familiar with the policy,” the spokeswoman said. This year, “we’ve really tried to enforce it.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55816-2003Oct20
Actually a search engine is not a searchable database.
A searchable database is a searchable database. A search engine is a program that searches the searchable database.
But damn that sounds petty. Because search engines pretty much have their own databases. So Suicidal is kind of correct. But so too is Fafaroo, because the internet is interconnected networks, many of which have databases and are searchable.
I’m sure someone can parse my bullshit too, but that doesn’t make everything i’ve ever said hypocritical bullshit.
Does anyone want to move beyond the petty sniping and try to have some actual discussion that may lead to some greater understanding?
Technically, a search engine semi-sorta turns the internet into a searchable database, but it’s more that it turns a section (the searched – sought? – section) into a database-of-sorts.
From a pragmatic perspective, claiming the internet is a searchable database is a different sort of misstatement than a claim that the news doesn’t identify who appointed judges. The first is a misunderstanding of the technology and how it’s all tied together. The second is a misstatement of facts that are easily checkable, and one should check before repeating.
Let me create an analogy.
One person says that a 12 pack of soda should be the same price as last week, $4.25, because the bar code hasn’t changed. Another person says that the price is $3.99. The price is actually $4.50.
The first person doesn’t understand checkout scanners – they scan the same barcodes, but look up the price in the database. A mistake, but one that can be corrected; inform that person, and they’ll understand forevermore.
The second *didn’t bother to look up the price and just pulled a number out of their ass*. This is a much more serious error. It should be correctable, if there was any embarrassment for being wrong about such things, but in much of the world, there isn’t. People could proclaim that it was a good idea to kill boatloads of people because “everyone” (except for a bunch of people who turned out to be right) thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Are any of these people embarrassed that they were not only wrong, but that people *died* because they were wrong? Of course not; it doesn’t matter if they didn’t look at the evidence objectively!
People could proclaim that it was a good idea to kill boatloads of people because “everyone” (except for a bunch of people who turned out to be right) thought that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Are any of these people embarrassed that they were not only wrong, but that people *died* because they were wrong?
I often wonder how these people sleep at night. Did they think that on 9/11 George W. Bush suddenly became intelligent and truthful for the first time in his life? Wasn’t it kind of A CLUE that everything that could be checked out turned out to be a lie?
Joe Scarborough, the subject of the post, fell for it, and I would not care to join him in that particular category of dangerous fools.
Condoleezza Rice Schools Katie Couric on Why U.S. Invaded Iraq
You’d do well to read this and learn, Repack.
“What you can’t know is what would have happened had you not done it.“
What makes your statement on the Internet any better? You felt it was true without validating it.
What? Are you seriously equating the two things? Holy fuck. Here’s what you wrote Suicidal:
You subsequently back tracked to where “every night during the Bush administration” became “20 times” during “several weeks” at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan before the Iraq war nine years ago.
And you still haven’t acknowledged the fact that the media has indeed covered bodies returning home during the Obama administration as a just a search on CNN would have shown you.
So even taken you at your word, you spun an entire media conspiracy from false impressions and false assumptions. In order for this conspiracy theory to be even remotely plausible you have to be totally wrong on multiple points of fact and logic.
And yet even as you are forced to backtrack on the basic facts of your claim, you have yet to acknowledge that your conspiracy theory was founded on total bunk.
Looking at what I said, at worst, my statement “wasn’t well stated” while it’s essential meaning remains the same: Conservatives seem incapable or unwilling of using the internet to check the basic facts of their outlandish conspiracy theories.
What’s more, to the extent that a database can be defined as “an organized body of related information,” which it is here, (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=database), search engines mean the internet can function as a database of human knowledge no matter what they or it may be technically.
But you think the two statements represent the same degree of error. Typical.
was demonstrable false and
“A searchable database is a searchable database. A search engine is a program that searches the searchable database.”
Exactly, technically from an end user perspective a search engine is a web based frontend that queries a database server.
Even if you are logged onto an oracle database server you still need a client program like sqldeveloper or Sqlplus to query and populate the database otherwise it’s not very searchable.
As far as Joe, what do you expect? He is a commentator. They are opinion people that care less about facts and more about supporting their particular view.
As far as Joe, what do you expect? He is a commentator. They are opinion people that care less about facts and more about supporting their particular view.
This is your excuse, too?
“Condoleezza Rice Schools Katie Couric on Why U.S. Invaded Iraq”
Nice of you to point to Brent Bozo’s clown show for the slow for a completely unrelated topic.
“Schooled?”
Rice: “I don’t agree with that premise at all”
..Aaand thats about all you need to read from the article. That’s the gist of Condi’s “schooling”, but if you want to go over to Newsbusters (if your conscience doesn’t punch you in the dick) it pretty much goes like this;
Couric: “There was evidence to the contrary that Iraq had WMD’s”
Rice: “Not true! The WORLD (Condi fails to mention who) said so!” Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, Shia and Iranians” (fails to mention the support Hussein got from the Reagan Oval Office)
Couric: “You didn’t find anything.”
Rice: “So what, sue me. We werent sure, OK? Look Iraq is a DEMOCRACY now, so there.”
-That’s “schooling”
Tomorrow from Newsbusters!; A Look Back at Pete McNeeley’s thrashing of Mike Tyson!
Hm. I seem to remember Ms. Rice stating that aluminum tubes that could not be used as centrifuge parts were clearly for centrifuges, in spite of Iraq having shown that they were trying to reverse engineer rockets, and the tubes were part of the process.
And then, she says that, oh, some people said this, some people said something else… when she either knowingly lied, or should have resigned as an incompetent.
And then, continuing the lie in front of a journalist is called “school”ing that journalist. Perhaps they think that “school” comes from “schoolyard” where pompous bullies work on the basis of what can be gotten away with, rather than what is right.
LHW, you might notice that Ms. Rice led off with a big, fat lie: No inspections in Iraq in years! she says.
Get a haircut, Longhaired hippie.
Rice: “So what, sue me. We werent sure, OK? Look Iraq is a DEMOCRACY now, so there.”–Paul_D
Nice use of quotes there, Paul_D. The first black Secretary of State who just happened to be a woman, and that drove you crazy, didn’t it?
The mask slips again.
You’re bound to hurt yourself pulling that kind of logic from that deep out of your ass.
Paul, you’re addressing the Goatse of logic mining.
This is “schooling?” I think you must have posted the wrong link, because this would not have gotten Condi out of my eighth grade class.
“…let me go back to the premise, the question, in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, what was the — it’s true that you can only — that what you know today can affect what you know and do tomorrow, but what you know today cannot affect what you did yesterday.”
What is her native language anyway? It sure isn’t English. She takes diction lessons from George W. Bush. She could have just said, “Hindsight is 20-20.” And that of course is why YOU MAKE DAMNED SURE YOU ARE RIGHT BEFORE KILLING 100,000 PEOPLE AND SPENDING A TRILLION DOLLARS.
“So the premise that somehow, because weapons of mass destruction were not found in stockpiles, the rationale for the war was flawed leaves out the fact that at the time that we decided to go to war, we thought there were weapons of mass destruction. So let’s stipulate that.”
No, let’s not “stipulate” something that is not true just to forestall argument. Let’s “stipulate” that this tiny little mistake killed 100,000 people, and if I made a tiny little “mistake” like that I would not be able to live with myself. I would have eaten a bullet the minute I was proved wrong.
But I have principles, and Condi doesn’t. A year before the invasion, George W. Bush said, “Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out.” (Look it up.) Every rationale that followed was only meant to disguise a decision that was already made.
If you believed this was “schooling,” you need a little more yourself. No wonder you fell for the WMD. This is monstrous stupidity and meaningless word salad from Condi, a great example of her complete cluelessness. Thanks for supplying more evidence of her failings, but I was already aware them.
Dennis,
Would the fact that we sold Saddam the WMD (poison gas, not nukes) that he used against the Kurds and Iranians with Ronald Reagan’s and Donald Rumsfeld’s blessing be germane to Condi’s argument that Saddam had used WMD.
If using the gas that we supplied in the manner which it was designed for is reprehensible, why did we sell it to him?
Terrorist Fist Jab for the ‘Packster.
If Saddam was a terrorist, then Ronald Reagan was a terrorist sympathizer and supporter.
Interesting.
I shut Dennis TFU up with that one. What do I win?
If using the gas that we supplied in the manner which it was designed for is reprehensible, why did we sell it to him?
I never read the original contract to that sale, ‘TFJ Packster’, but perhaps you did. Did Saddam indicate he was going to use mustard gas on his own people, with plans to kill 100,000 of his own citizens and wiping out a score or so of his country’s own villages; and did Rumsfeld tell him ‘Sure, Saddam, do as you please, as long as you please.”???
Or was it in the contract that that initial sale meant that forever more Saddam could produce whatever biological weapons he pleased in any amount he pleased and use them as he pleases?
Maybe you could produce that contract for us and we could all read it together.
After that we’ll discuss why your representative in Congress as Speaker of th House with a clear majority behind her and a super-majority in the Senate decided it wasn’t all that great a political move to prosecute something you pronounce as an open and shut case.
Terrorist Fist Jab for the ‘Packster’.
Yeesh.
I guess I shut ‘TFJ Packster’ TFU up with that one. What do I win?
Did the Bush administration say that we had to invade Iraq because they had used the WMD that Reagan sold them on their own people, Dennis, or did they instead only say that we had to invade because Iraq had the WMDs that Reagan sold them?
He was already using chemical weapons in his war with Iran. So, the question for anyone interested in human life was “did we force him to *stop* before selling him the military equipment we sold him?” and the answer is “no”. No big deal until he invaded Kuwait, a repressive monarchy with a bad human rights record, at which point he became Mr. Evil and his use of chemical weapons was waved like a red-painted shirt (which everyone knew was painted, not bloodied, but everyone pretended was bloodied because, gee, wouldn’t it be embarrassing if the US had supported him up until then).
You know, if you were just engaging in childlike innocence, it’d be *cute* that you’re so naive, but you’re helping people re-write history over a time when the US did some horrible things and helped a brutal dictator. Rather than regretting that aid, and demanding the chance to put things right, people like you try to pretend the mistake was never made, and that we’ve always been clean and unsullied, and, honestly, I don’t know how you sleep at night when you’re willing to help in such a terrible cover-up.
Oooh, snap, he used WMD on his own people! Dennis, what is the moral difference between using poison gas on “your own” (if somewhat rebellious) people, and using it on people from another country? International law against poison gas does not make any such distinction.
If the WMD used by Saddam were sold to him by and used with the blessing of the US president, how hypocritical is it to say that we needed to invade his country because he did what we expected and even encouraged him to do with the weapons we supplied? At that time, Saddam was considered an ALLY, and Reagan was using Iraq as a proxy to wage war against Iran just as he used the “Contras” to wage a proxy war in Central America.
If you sell someone a gun, how can you possibly be surprised if he uses is to shoot someone? Do you believe there are instructions for its use printed on the box, as well as limitations on whom you may shoot? Do you think there is a codicil in the trade agreement that says “Don’t Use On Kurds.” But you say that you need to read the instructions on the package to understand how poison gas is used, and apparently you think that those instructions limit whom you may use it on.
How do you maintain all these contradictory thoughts at the same time?
Did you need any more evidence that Condi Rice was speaking out of her anus when she was schooled BY Couric?
Looking through the Internets on the subject, I see that in 1982 Ronald Reagan took Iraq off the list of “known terrorist countries,” over the objections of Congress.
The US violated its own Arms Control Act by secretly shipping weapons (helicopters and cannons) to Iraq through intermediaries Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt.
In November 1983, the Reagan administration received reports of Saddam using gas against Iranian troops. Reports of gas attacks followed for the next five years with absolutely no action on the part of the Reagan administration, during which time Saddam was repeatedly assured that the US was on his side. In 1984 the CIA helped Saddam with intel for deploying gas against Iran. As late as 1988 the US and Dow Chemical continued to ship chemicals specific to the manufacture of mustard gas to Iraq. Congress reported in 1994 that there had been at least 70 US shipments to Iraq of anthrax and botulinum biological agents. Please explain the benign uses of these agents.
Some of the helicopters supplied to Iraq were equipped with “crop spraying” (snicker) devices that could be used without modification to deliver poison gas. (Wink)
When Saddam used WMD, he did it with the blessing, encouragement, and assistance of the US.
Prod-
Did all your favorite Democrats who were for the war in Iraq before they realized it was politically beneficial to them to be against it not realize we had sold WMD’s to Saddam Hussein in years gone by? And unlike you, did they not realize that gave him a lifetime exemption for ever using them on anyone he had the notion to?
WTF, pro-Iraq War Democrats Before It Was Fashhionable to be Against It, no Terrorist Fist Jabs for you!
Rather than regretting that aid, and demanding the chance to put things right, people like you try to pretend the mistake was never made, and that we’ve always been clean and unsullied, and, honestly, I don’t know how you sleep at night when you’re willing to help in such a terrible cover-up.–LH Weirdo
Don’t see where I pretended a mistake was never made. Just don’t see where the mistake means Saddam Hussein wasn’t a threat. Much better arguments can be made besides that one. If you think that gives Saddam Hussein an exemption from gassing his own people, 100,000 strong, then I don’t see how you sleep at night.
If you sell someone a gun, how can you possibly be surprised if he uses is to shoot someone?
I’d be selling it to him on the premise he’d be using it for his own defense, not to murder an innocent person in cold blood, like what Saddam Hussein did to 100,000 of his own people.
Have you spoken to your Congressional representative about this, TFJ Packster?
Nancy Pelosi, right? She had a lot of power at one time. What was her opinion on getting to the bottom of this situation? Did you write her. What did she write back to you?
Someone quotes me.
NI.
PO!
Thank you for admitting that your blather about whether Saddam using the WMDs that Reagan sold him was as much of a “LOOK OVER THERE” to the fact that Condoleeza Rice was wrong as your citation of Condolleza Rice being wrong was a “LOOK OVER THERE” to the fact that Scarborough was wrong, Dennis.
Back to the kid games, Prodigal? Thank you for admitting you carry the intellectual firepower of a garden slug to every argument you try to participate in.
WhenIf you provide an explanation of what Condoleeza Rice being wrong about the WMDs that Reagan sold to Iraq has to do with Scarborough being wrong about the media identifying which President appointed a judge, then you can talk about game playing, Dennis.What?!?! You’re a crazy person, Prodigal. A conversation between Condoleeza Rice and Katie Couric where neither of them even brought up Reagan or the WMDs sold to him during his administration is somehow tied in with a conversation Joe Scarborough had with a panel on his morning show about IDing judges when a conservative-appointed judge makes a decision that liberals don’t agree with?
LH Weirdo and TFJ Packster brought up WMD’s on this thread, not me. Either go back to your water bong or ask them to bring those two topics together to your understanding.
Maybe you could tell everyone here why it was that liberal Jon Meacham of liberal Newsweek just sat there all embarrassed and wholeheartedly agreed with Joe Scarborough. Was it because he didn’t have the intertoobz at his disposal and should’ve been aware of the instance that Fox Nation and Drudge once ID’d a Clinotn-appointed judge in a case that favored liberal views?
Repack: If you sell someone a gun, how can you possibly be surprised if he uses is to shoot someone?
I’d be selling it to him on the premise he’d be using it for his own defense, not to murder an innocent person in cold blood, like what Saddam Hussein did to 100,000 of his own people.
Suicides top the list of gun deaths in America, followed by murder. In the United States there are about 50 suicides and 40 homicides for every legal shooting, either self defense or police action. Given those statistics, why on earth would anyone reasonably expect that the use of a gun against a person is likely to be anything other than a murder or a suicide?
TFJ Packster, what does your Congressional representative tell you when you ask her why she chose not to prosecute what you claim are war crimes? I know you say you couldn’t sleep if you did what Bush did, but how could you sleep knowing you did nothing about it and didn’t demand your represetative do the very least she could do to remedy what would’ve been, if what you are claiming is true, one of the worst crimes against humanity ever? How do you sleep at night knowing all you did was sit out on street corners and denounce the war but offering no, or at most only token disapproval for lack of prosecution and total disregard for a proper remedy to these injustices?
what does your Congressional representative tell you when you ask her why she chose not to prosecute what you claim are war crimes?
I am represented in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, a DINO who never saw a civil liberty she didn’t want to destroy or a war she didn’t want someone else to fight and pay for. She is also chair of the Intel Committee, which supposedly conducts oversight of the
KGB GestapoCIA. I say “supposedly” because there does not seem to be anything they can’t get away with. Since you asked, here is the text of my recent (12-10-10), and to date unanswered email to DiFi. If and when she responds you will be the second to know.Dennis, Condoleeza Rice was defending the false claim that Saddam had WMDs in the interview that you linked to in your original attempt to change the subject (I do admit, however, that I keep reminding you that Reagan sold WMDs to Saddam because it makes you go crazier). She was as wrong about that as you were when you claimed that she “schooled” anyone.
But thank you for finally posting something that has anything whatsoever to do with the subject of the original post, which was how Joe Scarborough was wrong about the media’s identification of which President appointed what judges. I’ll even give you partial credit for trying to shift the discussion to the question of why a guest on the show where Scarborough was wrong didn’t call him on it. It was still a case of you yelling “look over there”, but unlike most of the times when you’ve done that, you at least stuck to the same shooting set.
Dennis, I have to admit, you’re right, I brought up the issue of WMDs as a prime example of people making false claims and not checking the evidence leading to people dying, and not even having the basic human decency to be ashamed that their stupidity led to people’s deaths.
At that point, you decided to crow about how Ms. Rice repeated her lies (or, if you insist *SHE DID NOT LIE*, re-demonstrated rank incompetence), which led to the deaths of others.
A prime example of how there simply isn’t any shame in being wrong to people like you, or people like Ms. Rice.
I think that was, in some ways, productive… analogous to someone calling a person an ass, and having that person bray.