This is a pretty good perspective piece provided by Jude Wanniski, the Godfather of Supplyside economics. In the two companion books put out by Sid Blumenthal (The creator of the term "Right Wing Conspiracy") and Hillary Clinton, Wanniski is included with a pantheon of others in that RWC, even though he is a social liberal. This response pares through the broad misdirection in the SB-HC books and presents a more succinct analysis of the actual times written about. It is important to note that in this analysis, sex plays almost no part, except in that it was mentioned as a means to help cover up the important things. I noted that the Clinton bombing of Kosovo, the bombing of the Aspirin factory, and the bombing of Iraq in 1998, which were arguably only done to distract from The Cox Committee report on the illegal transfer of military technology to the Chinese, the commencement of the Impeachment Hearings, and the Monica Interview, were not even mentioned.
Sid Blumenthal's book about the Clinton White House was released a few weeks ago. At 822 pages, one wonders if Sid thinks books should be sold by the pound. But if books were sold by the lie, Hillary Clinton's new book, some 240 pages shorter, would give Sid's book a run for the money.
Both books adhere to the Big Lie theory: if a lie is big enough, and if you tell it often enough, you can get a majority of people to believe just about anything.
Sid’s book gives an endless O.J. Simpson dream-team treatment for each of the Clinton scandals as he attempts to airbrush history. Rewriting history is essential, because if Sid and Hillary can't do it, their twisted political ideology doesn't have a prayer.
The Hard-Left has nothing to offer except lies. They have correctly observed that there are many Liberals in this country who are willing to believe anything their leftist leadership tells them, even when it's clear they're being fed big, bold whoppers.
Thus, when otherwise credible eyewitnesses claim that Bill Clinton is a reckless womanizer, a hysterical chorus rises up and demands a burden of proof rarely ever required in a civil court they want to see the DNA. The Hard-Left pacifies their faithful by impugning the credibility of truthful witnesses.
Without DNA proof, as far as the Hard-Left is concerned, it never happened.
Sid and Hillary continually allege that every scandal during the Clintonseight long years in office was the product of a well-financed, mean-spirited Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, determined to bring down well-meaning progressives like Bill and Hillary Clinton.
In a recent television interview, Hillary Clinton asserted that such efforts to deny her husband's legitimacy existed from the very beginning of his and her presidency. Since I am often cited as one of the members of this Right Wing Network or Conspiracy, let me recall just a few of the events which defined the Clinton presidency and caused some like me to become alarmed:
The presidents very first agenda was to undo just about anything the previous president had set into place by executive order. Breaking procedures, policies, rules, and many laws was no big deal for Clinton and his privileged administration who believed they were above the law.
Clinton's next major agenda item was to make the military safe for gays and lesbians. This Hard-Left agenda item got the attention of the nation in general and Christian evangelicals in particular not to mention more than a few serious Catholics and immediately plunged the new administration into unnecessary chaos.
Also during the Clintonsfirst year in office, Hillary Clinton was placed in charge of one of this country's biggest efforts to socialize a significant aspect of every citizen's life. Hillary and her liberal friends wanted to make healthcare a vast system of government bureaucracies so that everyone would have universal healthcare just like they enjoy in Cuba.
Hillary's healthcare program was sweeping and would have turned any American who wanted to seek their own doctor into a crook. Maybe that's why Hillary's plan was rejected or maybe people caught a strong whiff of Hard-Left Socialism in the air and were smarter than Hillary expected. The rejection of Hillary-care became one of the Clintons greatest failures and colored most of the rest of this dysfunctional administration's years as people wondered what they would botch next.
Clinton disasters occurred on both large and small scales. For instance, Clinton's petulant and clumsy administration fired dozens of career White House correspondence analysts, some who had worked there for more than 25 years. These experienced employees were scrapped to reward donors and campaign workers with patronage jobs. The resulting mountain of unopened, unanswered mail caught the attention of the Washington press corps who wondered what might happen to all that mail. No problem: the mail was taken away to warehouses to keep it out-of-sight and the rest was shredded in the basement of the Old Executive Office Building.
Hillary also ordered the sacking of the White House Travel Office. To make it look like there were good reasons for firing these seven dedicated federal workers Hillarys agents accused them of wrong doing and sicced the FBI and IRS on these innocent functionaries. Just to make sure everyone got the message, press secretary Dee Dee Meyers went to the Washington press corps to announce their impending investigation by the feds.
Instead of avoiding the bad press they invited with the firing of the dedicated and experienced ladies in the Correspondence Office, this clumsy and injurious act brought the Clintons congressional scrutiny as senators and congressmen were alerted to a very real abuse of presidential power.
Another example occurred when Clinton's ATF botched a raid on the Branch Davidian's compound outside a little Texas town named Waco. After being accused of ineptitude by the Washington press corps, Attorney General Janet Reno ordered the FBI to assault the compound, killing more than 80 people 20 of whom were innocent babies.
As if things weren't bad enough, Clinton took an unprecedented step in firing the FBI Director. William Sessions responded by accusing Clinton of politicizing the FBI.
The day after Sessions was fired, Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster died of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Mystery surrounded Fosters death, and to make matters worse, the Clintons and their friends acted as if they were hiding something. This caused the curious to continue looking, and in the end, no one could say for sure that Foster killed himself or that he died in Fort Marcy Park.
There is a plethora of material for any Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to use against Bill and Hillary Clinton. But evidence of their incompetence and their out-of-touch Hard-Left political schemes speak for themselves. Regardless of whether or not a group of concerned American citizens stood watch for the Clintons schemes and maneuvers then or now, there was always a hungry Washington press who could not resist investigating and reporting the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Hillary should thank her lucky stars that Monica came along when she did, because a very real effort to impeach Bill Clinton for good reasons was well underway in the U.S. House of Representatives. This effort was led by Congressman Bob Barr, a former United States Attorney, who knew how to weigh good, strong evidence.
When the ugliness of the Lewinsky affair surfaced in January of 1998, any chance to impeach Bill Clinton for good reasons was washed away by a Washington press corps obsessed with sex. That particular circus side-show was not created by a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Much of what Hillary and Sid complain about today was of their own creation as they tried to explain Bill Clinton's reckless womanizing.
Hillary and Sid sought to align themselves with the political life of Bill Clinton, a seriously flawed man. When it comes to Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get. So they should not complain they got what they expected and what they deserved.
Plus, Hillary and Sid got huge book advances, and nobody in the so-called well-financed Vast Right Wing can claim that juicy accomplishment.
Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a TownHall.com member group.
For those interested, when the Presidential Orders are noted in this analysis, EO 13083 is probably one of the best examples:
Clinton's Executive Order 13083 compared to Reagan's 12612 can be found here.
Check out Sec. 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 (c) wherein Clinton attempts to raise the Federal government to sovereign status: "The Constitution created a Federal government of SUPREME, but limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States..."
In contrast, Reagan actually said the sovereignty resides with the people who delegated enumerated governmental powers to the national government.
Notice that Reagan's 2 (g) and 2 (i) were deleted.
EO 13083 would have justified federal intervention in any issue for any reason. There is simply no other reasonable way of interpreting it. It would have reduced state and local government to, at best, advisory status. I say, "at best" because Clinton didn't even bother to consult with state and local officials before issuing EO 13083.
Until the political pressure rose, Clinton was even proud of what he had done. Within months, Paul Begala was boasting of how Clinton would step up use of the executive order as a tool of governing, going over the heads of Congress. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land," Begala said. "Kinda cool."
Lambert, do you ever NOT march in lockstep?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Clinton's next major agenda item was to make the military safe for gays and lesbians. This Hard-Left agenda item got the attention of the nation in general and Christian evangelicals in particular not to mention more than a few serious Catholics and immediately plunged the new administration into unnecessary chaos.
Correcting a wrong that causes outrage from religious fanatics is somehow Clinton’s fault.
quote:killing more than 80 people 20 of whom were innocent babies.
Ridiculous statement to hold Clinton responsible for the actions of more religious fanatics.
quote:the Clintons and their friends acted as if they were hiding something.
quote:But evidence of their incompetence and their out-of-touch Hard-Left political schemes speak for themselves.
But he offers no evidence just more accusations and hyperbole.
I’m not even a Clinton supporter. But, it’s this kind of crap that makes it impossible for most Americans to know what’s going on or to able to trust either party. Give us some facts, some proof. Not just conjecture, speculation, and innuendo.
Tom I do not march in lockstep. I can throw soccer moves that will leave you dumbfounded. Should I have suspected that you would be the first person to respond, and that your response would be politics of personal destruction? Attack the person and not what the person said. You are better than that, Tom.
In these matters you can not hide behind your youth and say you did not actually live through the things described in this analysis. You said you hated Reagan, but that was second-hand. You believed the dems were responsible for Civil rights, instead of being the ones that fought against it tooth and nail - but you got that second-habd as well. This stuff you lived through. You know the debacle of the healthcare reform committee that Hillary put together and how the umbrage was universal - and not solely contrived by political rivals. You saw EO 13083 get squashed by congress - one of the few times it has ever been done - and you had plenty of time to read the documents and understand what they meant.
Use your considerable mental acuity to analyze what actually occurred that you were witness to, and how that differs from the versions presented by Blumenthal and Hillary. That is what this thread is about. There is no lockstep here unless you bring it to the table.
A reasonable person who supports Hillary in some things and not in others may have taken issue with something and gone on to introduce a line of debate to convince otherwise. Did you do that? No.
Another person who is embarrassed by what went on and is tired of apologizing for miscreants may shout how "this has been done to death!" This strategy, of course, ignores that the current books ARE current events and are the launching stage for both Hillary's national ambitions, as well as her husband's. Do you really want someone as head of NATO who gave the royal jewels of our nuclear technology to the Chinese? Is it worth talking about before it is banished to the realm of "trivial matters best left undisturbed?"
You are unabashedly liberal, Tom - and have always reacted to anything posted by me about the Clintons as not credible due to some "lock step mentality." Yet the quote in this thread is from a social liberal. like yourself, who understands the realities of the past.
Let's stop the name-calling and respond on point.
You tell me... I'm sure you were second in line to get Hillary's book (We know Greg Packer was first.) What did Hillary say about EO 13083? Was it produced in a vacuum? Did Blumenthal mention how Executive Orders were raised to a dangerously new level - designed to sidestep all checks and balances built into our Constitution to prevent such abuses?
Do you agree that it was the open meetings laws that forced Hillary to reveal WHO was in her healthcare task force which then revealed the dearth of scientists and the glut of liberal businessmen who would profit from their own recommendations? Did the books explain the expunged lists that were gotten past?
Do you agree that the liberalization of the military was poorly done? How did Hillary report this in her book? Are the two the same as you personally recall?
These things I expect in this forum. Here we look beyond any personal political agendae and try to get at the facts and truths behind things. If you have personal insight and facts I'm not privy to that will change my mind about things then go for it. My mind is not set and I am easily able to follow the logic behind your arguments and accept them as my own if they are truthful and honest and my preconceived notions found to be incorrect. That is all I've ever asked in this forum,
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
William, I have essentially given up "attacking" your arguments because they aren't actually arguments; they are, at heart, PREMISES.
I disagree quite emphatically with virtually everything you have stated as "fact" in your last post; listing the things with which I disagree, in fact, would wind up generating a post that's almost a line-by-line reproduction of your own.
And, unfortunately, it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion with you about the ACCURACY of your statements, since you have blinded yourself to any premises and sources that do not mesh nicely with your own worldview.
I recognize that you believe the same of me, and that someday I might well "mature" into the kind of man you have become. I'd like to believe, however -- and however wrongly -- that my own opinions are based on a bit more observation and a bit less assumption.
Since we disagree on those basic assumptions, however, it's frankly ridiculous for me to try to argue with you, and vice versa. However, I must admit that I grow tired of your continued partisan wrangling, the nasty and mean-spirited harping that certain conservatives -- yourself included -- CONTINUE to froth about.
You'll notice that there's plenty for liberals to whine about in the current administration; the same kind of "insider" dealings of which you accuse Clinton's health care commission can EASILY be applied to any number of current Republican sideshows. You'll notice, further, that I don't start posts about this kind of thing; I consider it sanctimoniously partisan, especially when the complaints come from only one side of the aisle. It's POSSIBLE for someone to go line by line through your post and rebut every point, or argue that, yes, this kind of thing DID occur, but that Republicans do it "just as much" -- but that's silly and petty and, frankly, not worth anyone's time.
Why spend one's life clinging to foolish paranoias and bitter resentment of people you've never met?
You CAN be more than a one-trick pony; you CAN have more than a one-track mind. It's not NECESSARY for you to dog the Clinton "legacy" like a pitbull, Lambert, especially since there are so many people who are so well-paid to already do it; you don't need to repost and distribute their sour-lipped whining to the world. Give us something NEW, please.
Thank you for your reply, Knight Ender, you said: "Correcting a wrong that causes outrage from religious fanatics is somehow Clinton’s fault." I guess that means that you disagree with the military's own recommendatiuons made to the Clintons, which they partially ignored. You also must agree that excluding gays and lesbians fromn the military was wrong to begin with. If you do, then why was the law left the way it was under Clinton? It is fimly stated in military law that gays and lesbians are excluded - if one finds out by accident. Is the "Don't ask - don't tell" rule is one you fully endorse?
Knight Ender, you then went on to comment on the statement that killing more than 80 people, 20 of whom were innocent babies, was a "Ridiculous statement to hold Clinton responsible for the actions of more religious fanatics." I thought the Branch Davidians had been searched out by the BATF as a showcase exercise to bolster their budget request. The offshoot Seventh Day Adventists in their church and dormitories (not a compound), were not accused by any child welfare agency or any other agency as having broken any laws, or even to have any hearings planned. As a matter of fact the local Sherrif said he was on good terms with Koresh and could pick him up at any time with no hassle. The sales of weapons was challenged as being possibly illegal - but the fine for being found guilty was a small fee - not anything approaching seige mentality.
The BATF claimed that Koresh was going to be violent, and that this would justify its armed assault. Their evidence? An allegation that Koresh had told a social worker that he was a messenger from God and that, when the time came, the violence in Waco would make the LA riots pale by comparison. The statement by the social worker, however, was alleged to have been made on April 6, 1992. More than 3 weeks BEFORE the LA riots! How could she have refered to the LA riots if they hadn't happened yet?
The "illegal" weapons charge is only filing papers and paying a $200 tax. Does this justify the kind of action taken by the BATF?
The BATF invited the press and released publicity for the code named project "Showtime", which gives support that the entire event was staged. Your post: "Ridiculous statement to hold Clinton responsible for the actions of more religious fanatics" doesn't answer any of the charges. Now you could say that Clinton didn't do it - it was all Janet Reno, and that is certainly debateable.
Knight Ender, you then said: "Clintons and their friends acted as if they were hiding something," and called that unsubstantiated hyperbole, in reference to the Vince Foster death. Sorry, you are dead wrong on that. It is not hyperbole that the only official investigation made was by Miguel Rodriguez, an experienced homicide investigator brought in by Starr because the three-judge panel found that all earlier attempts at investigations were compromised. Rodriguez found because of concrete evidence that Foster did not die at Ft. Narcy park by his own hand. No hyperbole. At the time of his report, Starr was beset by other investigations, and three FBI agents contradicted Rodrigues, so Starr went off an other directions. These three FBI agents later were found to be lying about the case - and admitted their lies - but the case was never readdressed.
As for "Clintons and their friends acted as if they were hiding something," you do realize that when Sessions was fired, Nussbaum was put in charge of the FBI, and he was the person charged with taking materials out of Foster's office illegally. The statements that Foster had been depressed prior to his death were all proven incorrect - he was emotionally fit and all his associates called him up and happy. His weight was improving and all things looked rosy for him. His only downpoints may have been with upcoming cases against the Clintons, but those were all mostly dropped upon his death.
Knight Ender, you went on to question the post's statement that "evidence of their incompetence and their out-of-touch Hard-Left political schemes speak for themselves." You said: "He offers no evidence just more accusations and hyperbole."
For you to hold this opinion you also must ignore all the points that were already made, as well as the points you know are there but were left out, such as the bombing in Kosovo allegedly in response to over 100,000 genocide deaths of Albanian victims. We now know that only 2000 bodies or deaths have been uncovered, and most of those were legitimate military personnel from the KLA mercenaries or Serbs victims, not Albanians. To this date, no member of the Clinton administration has addressed the inaccurate numbers. Likewise, The targeting of the aspirin factory and Iraqi boombing are also left for your speculation.
Do you also ignore "out-of-touch Hard-Left political schemes" as if they didn't exist? I can think of several. Do you think the funding for the arts in which Christian artifacts or icons are smeared with dung or floating in urine is middle-of-the-road?
Do you ignore the The Grand Staircase - Escalante National Monument (Kaiparowits "monument")? The September 1996 announcement of the Escalante "Memorial" came in the middle of the presidential campaign, on the heels of large contributions originating from the Lippo group, which is owned by the Riaddys of Indonesia. The Lippo Corporation in Indonesia is the only other source of the very low sulfur, non-polluting coal, outside the Utah Kaiparowits basin, currently available. No this was not just about penalizing a State that voted against him. This was a flat-out political windfall to the Riaddy family. One proof which is in the pudding is the unarguable fact that if a person was to create a National Monument, even if done just to irritate the former landowners, that person would at least protect areas of land that was requested by environmental and conservation groups and include historical preserves. To avoid these areas and specifically take the land which prevents exploitation of the clean-burning coal is a defining action. A key archeological site and other important environmental sites the local residents wanted protected were left outside, while ordinary desert land with nosignificance or unique natural features was included solely to block entrance to the environmentally friendly coal deposits. Furthermore, recall that this was done out of the blue without input from the states involved.
Knight Ender, when you say "it’s this kind of crap that makes it impossible for most Americans to know what’s going on or to able to trust either party. Give us some facts, some proof. Not just conjecture, speculation, and innuendo." I disagree. Be a part of the process - not just a disgruntled victim. Don't ignore statements that are verifiably true - but that you haven't done the necessary homework on to know whether they're true or not. In this posted analysis, many things are said which are true but not elaborated upon because of the limits of space. How often have you questioned the clichés and talking points put out in the same manner by the media reporting the news? I agree it is hard sometimes to know what is fluff and what is important, but the onus is on ourselves to satisfy our curiosities.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
BTW - I choose to ignore Tom here. As you can all see, he is not speaking on point - just more name calling. Too bad.
If he would spend the time answering factual points rather than dissing everyone who catches him dissembling, he would be better off. Please ignore all references he has made about me always doing this or never doing that because they are untrue.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
You missed his point, Lambert... and its a very accurate point.
You can't see past the tree in front of you to even see the fact there are OTHER trees, much less a forest.
I had to bring up a tired point, but you so completely misread everything you claimed to have read concerning rockefeller, and have done that sort of thing with numerous other arguments on this site and hatrack, that its not worth anyone's time to argue facts with you. You ONLY accept facts that fit your preconceived notion of the world, going so far as to ignore facts presented in the same sources that you state back your opinion.
But... since your digging for an argument...
"Both books adhere to the Big Lie theory: if a lie is big enough, and if you tell it often enough, you can get a majority of people to believe just about anything."
Yup, lots of people do this... including George Bush Jr.
"The Hard-Left has nothing to offer except lies. They have correctly observed that there are many Liberals in this country who are willing to believe anything their leftist leadership tells them, even when it's clear they're being fed big, bold whoppers."
THe same is true of the hard-right, and the rightist leadership, including George Bush Jr.
"Thus, when otherwise credible eyewitnesses claim that Bill Clinton is a reckless womanizer, a hysterical chorus rises up and demands a burden of proof rarely ever required in a civil court they want to see the DNA. The Hard-Left pacifies their faithful by impugning the credibility of truthful witnesses"
The hard-right does this too, for example, the last 2 years of judicial nominations.
"Without DNA proof, as far as the Hard-Left is concerned, it never happened."
The right is of the same belief concerning a whole lot of different issues, as well.
"Sid and Hillary continually allege that every scandal during the Clintonseight long years in office was the product of a well-financed, mean-spirited Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, determined to bring down well-meaning progressives like Bill and Hillary Clinton"
William Lambert continually alleges that every scandal during Republican Administrations, and every attack on the Bush administration, is the product of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy. In fact, the entire Right Wing still buys into the tired notion of the "Leftist Media," despite the lack of ANY evidence.
ETc. etc. etc.
I could do this with EVERY line of that review, Lambert. And EVERY line of your subsequent posts. But that would be really boring.
IP: Logged |
"Clinton's next major agenda item was to make the military safe for gays and lesbians. This Hard-Left agenda item got the attention of the nation in general and Christian evangelicals in particular not to mention more than a few serious Catholics and immediately plunged the new administration into unnecessary chaos. "
You know what? Europe and Israel have no problems with the gays in THEIR militaries. You know what? It WAS necessary chaos. THe Clinton administration didn't go as far as it SHOULD have, largely because of the Christian evangelicals. We SHOULD have full access to the military for gay people.
The arguments offered up by the military and christian evangelicals as to why gays shouldnt be in the military are the same arguments offered up back when black people were integrating into the military, and have been proven wrong both by our successful race-integrated military, and by the militaries of Europe.
IP: Logged |
Everard, you said: "You missed his point, Lambert... and its a very accurate point. You can't see past the tree in front of you to even see the fact there are OTHER trees, much less a forest."
No, I understand his point - and it is wrong as are you. I have an open mind, and when I see disinformation being touted at objective fact I comment on it. The article said that the Foster investigation was left wide open... "in the end, no one could say for sure that Foster killed himself or that he died in Fort Marcy Park." Was my answer to Knight Ender written in an unreadable language? This is one example of the content of the article that is not subjective, or in any way other than how I presented it. What would you have me do? Say that Foster shot himself with a mystery gun in such a manner that the gun powder residue was on his hands in a defensive position, but there is no questions about it? That he was supposedly found well after all blood had stopped flowing, but the blood pattern ran uphill? There are many questions left unanswered - but the main one was answered - as I said by the ONLY investigator to run a complete investigation who positively stated that Foster did not die at Ft. Marcy Park by his own hand. What tree am I not seeing? Either you have nullifying evidence or you are wrong. Admit it or address it. No more name calling, please. I've reviewed all the evidence in the case - so I'm not sure where else you get your contradictory data that I can't see because I somehow miss the forest.
Everard, then you said: "I had to bring up a tired point, but you so completely misread everything you claimed to have read concerning rockefeller, and have done that sort of thing with numerous other arguments on this site and hatrack, that its not worth anyone's time to argue facts with you. You ONLY accept facts that fit your preconceived notion of the world, going so far as to ignore facts presented in the same sources that you state back your opinion."
Once again, my point with Rockefeller was that the history you are familiar with has been colored by time and contentious adversaries and is full of inaccuracies. Yes, there are many arguments against him, but it is you, who refused to look at the data I presented as if I was the one ignoring history. In our earlier thread about the unfair judgements made against the so-called "robber barons", I pointed out to you how you should distinguish between 19th century political entreprenuers, who gained monopolies by co-opting the legislature and judicial apparatus of the state, and market entrepreneurs, who built railroads with private money or who developed a competitive presence in, for example, the early 19th century steamship business. You went on to repeat the slurs against Rockefeller repeated in many incorrect history books, and I responded with multiple attributions of the profoundly accepted research of the era which supportted what I said, and repudiated what you said.
For instance, I reported the statement from The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burton W. Fulsom Jr. which told the full story of how J.D. Rockefeller reduced the cost of kerosene for millions of American consumers, which allowed them to light their homes without using whale oil. The book discusses the 30 year oil price war with the Russians in Baku (1885-1915), which drove Rockefeller to relentlessly reduce prices in order to compete in international markets; all the while thousands of American jobs hung in the balance. The profit-mongering you ascribe to him falls in the face of factual history. I also explained how Government has an almost universally miserable record in choosing the right entrepreneurs to back with tax-paid subsidies. For instance, Cornelius Vanderbilt grew rich offering better, safer, faster steamship transportation than was ever afforded by the leaky, underpowered behemoths built by his competitors, the "political entrepreneurs" who gained thinly veiled federal subsidies by lobbying in Washington for exclusive (and lucrative) U.S. mail contracts. The bloodsuckers were the government-backed parasites who Vanderbilt and his fellow entrepreneurs replaced. I recognized at the time that there were excesses with even the best businesmen in any era, but I don't recall you ever saying that there was any upside to these same few. Who has the open mind? I got into this historical analysis at the time because of serious research looking at purposeful disinformation that was allowed to permeate our schools. The research is strong that much of our preconceived notions about the so-called "Robber Barons" is wrong. My bringing that objective fact to your attention brands me as close-minded?
Everard, then you went on to the Big Lie theory and neither confirmed nor denied it's relevance as a strategy used in the books, other than "both sides do it" - attributing such a strategy to George Bush Jr. (President George W. Bush?) Your damning evidence? ...The last 2 years of judicial nominations. You mean like nominating Estrada who is found fully qualified by everyone except the Democrats?
You are incorrect, Everard, when you say, "William Lambert continually alleges that every scandal during Republican Administrations, and every attack on the Bush administration, is the product of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy. In fact, the entire Right Wing still buys into the tired notion of the "Leftist Media," despite the lack of ANY evidence."
No. I've never even come close to espousing such a claim about "all scandals and attacks." You made that up - lock, stock, and barrel. As I've said in the past, I think former President George Herbert Walker Bush should be in prison for what he did at Mena. But yes, many left wing attacks against conservatives have been bogus, and you are well aware of that. It was my congressman, David Bonnier who launched those over 200 unsubstantiated ethics charges against Gingrich which finally took their toll and brought him down. When I document disinformation being passed off as truth, then it is provable fact and not subjective opinion. If you don't understand that a left-wing media exists then I wonder about your ability to process truthful information. You shouldn't become confused by the fact that the smaller non-Leftist media is more appreciated and rewarded by more believability and ratings. Yes, Fox News has kicked the butts of all the left-wing media - but still strives to get it right with a fair and balanced view. Yes, Fox appears to be Right-leaning, but is that because each story is fact-checked? Yes, all Left-wing talk radio hosts have been dismal failures. Is that a conspiracy - or the result of poor content? Are you still ascribing all dissatisfaction of the Left to being financed by Melon or Scaife? There is no "lack of ANY evidence" about the Left-wing media, too. You cannot dismiss the studies done that prove its existence. However the strategy to proclaim a "Right-wing media" is fully documented as a strategy and not as objective fact.
Everard, then you said: "ETc. etc. etc. I could do this with EVERY line of that review, Lambert. And EVERY line of your subsequent posts. But that would be really boring."
In Europe, or even the British Commonwealth, the Clinton's political views would be taken as more or less moderately right-wing. Here, it could be argued that their view is to the left, if not of the population, then certainly of the boss class.
But even in this country, they do not qualify as "hard left". Sen. Clinton puts no-one in mind of the late lamented (at least by me) Sen. Wellstone. The Clintons, the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Party itself---on the real left, these folks were written off as political whores, long before Mr. Clinton's prodigious sexual immorality was assembled into a public spectacle.
If you don't believe how upset the real left was at Clinton, I suggest you look at back issues of the cartoon strip Tom Tomorrow.
As for fat book advances, I would be surprised if Powell, Limbaugh and Coulter were left by their publishers to starve while they waited for their royalties. And if Powell again, or Fleischer or Perle or the Cheneys or Karl Rove or Laura Bush decided to write a book, I suspect that they could expect good advances too.
"Once again, my point with Rockefeller was that the history you are familiar with has been colored by time and contentious adversaries and is full of inaccuracies."
And my point is that your view is so colored, you missed the facts in the books that you cited that contradicted your points.
" You went on to repeat the slurs against Rockefeller repeated in many incorrect history books, and I responded with multiple attributions of the profoundly accepted research of the era which supportted what I said, and repudiated what you said."
Which is why I claim you can't see the other trees for the one you're staring directly at. If you had read, carefully, the books you claimed to have read, you couldn't make either of the above statements.
"Everard, then you went on to the Big Lie theory and neither confirmed nor denied it's relevance as a strategy used in the books, other than "both sides do it" - attributing such a strategy to George Bush Jr. (President George W. Bush?) Your damning evidence? ...The last 2 years of judicial nominations. You mean like nominating Estrada who is found fully qualified by everyone except the Democrats?"
Nope, I didn't mention Estrada for this particular one. GOod try though. Actually, I'm thinking of the big lie of Iraq being responsible for 9/11, Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and being ready to use them against the US, the Big Lie that Bush is the education president (he refuses to fund education legislation that he supported) or the Big Lie that the Republican party supports working class families, etc.
"No. I've never even come close to espousing such a claim about "all scandals and attacks." You made that up - lock, stock, and barrel."
No, you've never espoused that, but then, I didn't say you did. Rather, I stated that this is what you DO.
Great, you found one counter-example. Most of the people in the "vast right wing conspiracy camp" have one or two counter-examples as well. Are you willing to drop the charges you make against them, as well? Or is one or two counter-examples enough to take some one out of a conspiracy camp?
" If you don't understand that a left-wing media exists then I wonder about your ability to process truthful information. You shouldn't become confused by the fact that the smaller non-Leftist media is more appreciated and rewarded by more believability and ratings. Yes, Fox News has kicked the butts of all the left-wing media - but still strives to get it right with a fair and balanced view."
Fox HARDLY sxtrives for a balanced view. The fact you think so shows, definitevely, that you are, indeed, blind as a bat.
"If you don't understand that a left-wing media exists then I wonder about your ability to process truthful information"
The fact you think one does exist, causes me to wonder about your ability to process truthful information.
Again and again, the right has attempted to show a right wing media... and what consistently comes up is that the vast majority of stories lean slightly left on social issues and slightly right on economics issues. That bastion of leftism, the New York Times, publishes, in a year, about 6 times as many anti-gun control articles and columns, as pro-gun control. The so called "leftist media" has, over the last 20 years, promoted balanced budgets and moderate taxation. The so called "leftist media" is decidedly ambivalent about how many restrictions should exist for abortions, fitting very closely with 70% of the american population who wants abortion to be legal... but isn't sure how much abortion should be legal. The so called "leftist media" has called for a global capitalist economy.
Thank you for your reply, A. T. Wilson. You said the international view of the Clinton's political views is not hard or far left. To a degree I can go along with you, because even though the Clintons do stand as extreme socialists in many matters, Bill Clinton is primarily an amoral pragmatist. What that gets him is the ability to side with whatever issue any particulaer opinion poll says is most popular at the moment. Don't be deceived into thinking that the Clintons have not stated their philosophy and they lean far left - rather be aware that they made the decision to hold power as the simplest means to bring that philosophy into fruition. Holding power means that Bill Clinton went against his own party and his stated goals many times and signed onto Populist bills and programs made by even "Right-wing extremists" if it meant a bump in the polls. EO 13083 is documented fact of how far Clinton wanted to go. Yes it was one of the few Executive Orders not allowed to make it into law, but if you check his following Executive Orders, you'll find a piecemeal reintroduction of those selfsame orders.
The reason the Clinton's political views may be taken as more or less moderately right-wing in one country and to the left in others is because no other country on Earth has a Constitution which states that the individual is sovereign. Check your founding documents, and you'll find all other countries claim the sovereignty of the state. Some countries, like Great Britain, Australia, or Canada may pledge benevolence to their people, but the power is from the top down, and any individual can be squashed for the good of the state.. In these countries, the political center is where the state says it is. It is like Spock holding up his split fingers and saying, "I.D.I.C. - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination." He was also known to say, "Sometiimes the One must sacrifice for the good of the many!" Kirk and Bones (being the simple-minded Americans that they were} replied saying, "Sometimes the Many must sacrifice for the good of the one." The individual is everything in American politics. There is no democratic vote that can violate the rights of any single person - even if all the rest of the population would benefit. In other countries redistribution of wealth and socialized government may be accepted, and visions of an American version may not seem too far to the left. But because of our Constitution, it is. When Hillary moved to create a healthcare system regulated by government and not the free-market system - it was an attempt for the government to gain control over a huge portion of the economy. That is far Left. That any citizen who wanted to hire his or her own doctor would become a criminal is far Left. Recall that these early attempts to change the nation were beaten back, and the GOP gained an unexpected majority that stopped such future attempts.
I agree with you also how upset the real left was at Clinton. When they weren't able to maintain popularity and still bring in their promised agenda - backed by all the Diversity crowd - they bailed. The Gay Left was infuriated at the half-baked "Don't ask, Don't tell" rule. Many groups counting on the Clintons to enrich their coffers and enact their agendae were left out. The Clintons figured they had a captive audience, and even if they failed to bring home the bacon for them they would always have their unbridled support. So Clinton backed NAFTA and the Unions didn't flinch. Clinton backed off on gun registration and abortion issues, and nobody deserted him.
BTW, A. T. Wilson, As for fat book advances, you said, "I would be surprised if Powell, Limbaugh and Coulter were left by their publishers to starve while they waited for their royalties. And if Powell again, or Fleischer or Perle or the Cheneys or Karl Rove or Laura Bush decided to write a book, I suspect that they could expect good advances too." Actually, Ann Coulter did document that in her book. Liberal book advances are far and away beyond any hope of being covered by future sales. The record is abysmal. Conservatives are turned down by most book publishers (Part of the non-existent Left-wing Media?) yet go on to have huge book sales, orders of magnitude above similar Liberal books hyped by the big Publishing firms. Most Conservative books do not see the light of day by the big Publishing houses, and resort to small specialty houses with little advances. I understand numbers of Hillary's book sales are not being announced because they are far under projected sales, yet her book is listed number one in most top ten book lists. You may be right that some of the Conservatives you named might get fat advances. But that is counter to the accounting numbers comparing the two.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Everard, you ignored my response about your failure to check out the multiple sources I gave you to understand what you don't know about the disinformation touted in many history books about Rockerfeller, and the many other non-government entrepreneurs who helped the country by replacing the monopolistic companies who were doing such poor jobs, that the people themselves, at the time, rose up and kicked them out.
You then said: "I claim you can't see the other trees for the one you're staring directly at. If you had read, carefully, the books you claimed to have read, you couldn't make either of the above statements." Since I've checked out these sources and you haven't, I must wonder at your logic. Here is the kind of information from the sources i provided for you that you should have studied: One of the most popular history books being used in Michigan schools, Forging the Peninsulas written by David McConnell, covers Henry Ford and Billy Durant. This analysis is by Dr. Burton W. Folsom, whose research caused many writers to apologize for their incorrect or sloppy work, and to correct themselves in future editions. This is not he forest for the trees I couldn't see is it?
quote:The triumphs of Henry Ford and Billy Durant made Michigan the heart of U. S. car production. McConnell does a fine job describing Henry Ford-his genius, his stubbornness, his mastery of car sales, and his fall from the top. McConnell's final two chapters, covering the last 65 years, need some improvement. McConnell starts by connecting the stock market crash of 1929 to bank closings, and the bank closings to the Great Depression in the 1930s. This connection is valid, but recent scholarship has shown that poor government policies helped start the chain of problems. The Federal Reserve, for example, created artificially low interest rates in the 1920s, and artificially high rates in the 1930s. In the last case, this retarded investment during the economic collapse. ... McConnell needs to mention other government policies that plagued Michigan during the Great Depression. For example, in 1930 Congress passed, and President Hoover signed, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, the highest tariff in U. S. history. This law hit Michigan and the auto industry especially hard. Over 800 items used to make cars were taxed by Smoot-Hawley. Not only did this raise the cost of producing cars, but foreign countries retaliated against our high tariff by refusing to buy U. S. cars. General Motors, Ford, and the other automakers saw vehicle sales plummet from 5.3 million in 1929 to 1.8 million in 1933. Michigan's economy was in ruins. McConnell notes that the number of workers at the Ford Rouge plant dropped from 98,337 to 28,915 from 1929 to 1933, but he never mentions how the Smoot-Hawley Tariff helped lead to this fiasco. ... Once we recognize that poor government policies helped get us into the Depression, we can question whether more government was really needed to get us out. McConnell implies that it was, and he presents only the positive side of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. "Once Roosevelt was in office," he writes, "the federal government started a number of programs to help the jobless. The new idea was to create jobs and pay the workers with federal money." He cites the Works Projects Administration (WPA), which employed 200,000 Michiganians by 1938, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which hired 100,000 young men in Michigan to plant trees, build parks, and restore campgrounds. ... McConnell omits a description of the tax hikes and deficit spending that were needed to support these programs. If we don't describe how the money was raised for the New Deal programs, we risk giving students a false sense of how an economy works. Many students will think, "If we have a depression and lose, say, 300,000 jobs in the auto industry, we can have the federal government come along and hire 300,000 people for the WPA and the CCC and thereby cancel the effects of the depression." This tactic, however, didn't work then and doesn't work now. Unemployment in 1938 was still in double digits. Jobs "created" by the government had to be funded by taxes, and these taxes siphoned capital out of industrial markets.
The point I made at the time we discussed this earlier Everard, was how books were written by people, and the things they said sometimes were wrong. You seem to be taking the stance that all these books that have been reedited because of erroneous material must now be read only in the original version that you once read in school. One of the many corretions made is in the gratuitous dissing of so-called Robber barons, like Carnegie or Rockefeller. Get the big picture first, Ev. There is a state with a big project going on. The people are sick and tired of some political bureaucrat misusing their tax dollars or fees to bankroll some monopolistic company that has no incentives for excellence and every reason to prolong its utility. The people rise up, fire the political bureaucrat and allow competitive bids from market entrepreneurs, who step in and do a much better job than the former rip-off artists. The people are happy, The entrepreneurs prosper, and the rip-off artists and former bureaucrats write bad history books.
Everard, then you once again brought up your rendition of the Big Lie theory. you said you didn't mention Estrada for this particular one., but was actually "thinking of the big lie of Iraq being responsible for 9/11, Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and being ready to use them against the US, the Big Lie that Bush is the education president (he refuses to fund education legislation that he supported) or the Big Lie that the Republican party supports working class families, etc." Fine. You use the big lie yourself. You claim we went into Iraq because we said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. No. it was the next target in a war against terrorism. Money is what allows terrorists to operate. Closing off their money supply is the only way to stop them. Our war has been to get banks to stop allowing terrorists free access to funds, and seal off their funding. Saddam was a major financier and go-between, as are many others in the MidEast. If you'll look back at past threads preceding out attack on Iraq, you'll see that I said there was a virtual impossibility of there being WMD there. I cited Gordon Prather for one, who said there was no chance of a nuclear program there, etc. I recognized at the time that as the media made a big deal about WMD it would get in the way of the anti-terrorism planning. The 1998 Clinton bombing of Iraq and UN decrees about WMD in Iraq were sufficient for the start of this action. I always classed WMD as not being the big story here, and still do. Those that hold to WMD as being the reason for the war missed a lot way back when. I am pleased by the amount of dangerous terrorist-oriented involvement that has been turned up so far. As for Bush not being the Education President - you must still be in the throes of ecstasy that a fomer Independent Senator bolted to the Dems to change the Majority status for awhile, because his pet Special Ed bill was put on a back burner. Other than that - his track record is not as bad as you make it seem. The bills and actions are different than ones you or your party may endorse - but it doesn't make them wrong. I advise you to wait and see. Your claim that the GOP does not support working class families is a part of the Dem "big Lie." You do know that Clinton had more millionaires in his cabimnet and his personal advisors than any President in history? No diversity there. It is humorous that the "Working class" is mainly conservative, but the Liberals deny the GOP as having any goodwill toward them.
Now, about "all scandals and attacks. Thank you for agreeing I've never espoused that. However, when you stated that this is what I DO, you're trying to say the same thing. I don't and that's all.
...And by saying I found one counter-example, you miss the point that there are many more than one. I assume you are smart and intelligent enough to be aware of them.
You said "Fox HARDLY strives for a balanced view. The fact you think so shows, definitevely, that you are, indeed, blind as a bat." Strange, I tune into anything on CNN, ABC, CBS, or NBC and see one token conservative getting ganged-up on by an entire board of Liberals and then go to Fox and see the conscious effort to allow both sides to air a fair statement of their views. No I must be an idiot not to see with my own eyes what everyone in the country has seen and commented upon.
The left-wing media exists. You are wrong to deny it. Do I have to repeat the story of Bartlett's Missing Quotations? The 16th edition of Bartlett's Quotations, published in late 1992, contains only three entries from Ronald Reagan, the same number as from Zachary Taylor and Gerald Ford. By comparison, there are 28 entries from John F. Kennedy and 35 from Franklin Roosevelt. Jimmy Carter, hardly remembered for his eloquence, has twice as many entries as the president who was called, even by his enemies, the "Great Communicator." Jonathan Siegel, co-editor of the Macmillan Book of Political Quotations, calls the political bias in the latest Bartlett's "an insult to the memory of John Bartlett and the ideologically inclusive spirit of the first 15 editions." It seems Justin Kaplan, the editor of Bartlett's Quotations, purposefully selected only three inane statements by Reagan to include because he detested Reagan, and wanted him to appear vapid for future generations of school children. (His admission.)
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The left-wing media exists. You are wrong to deny it. Do I have to repeat the story of Bartlett's Missing Quotations? The 16th edition of Bartlett's Quotations, published in late 1992, contains only three entries from Ronald Reagan, the same number as from Zachary Taylor and Gerald Ford. By comparison, there are 28 entries from John F. Kennedy and 35 from Franklin Roosevelt.
Ah, yes, Barlett's Familiar Quotations, where millions of Americans get their daily news.
You haven't proved the first sentence, except through subjective descriptions of what you perceive when you watch various television stations.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Oh, god yes, bartlett's quotations OBVIOUSLY proves the leftist media *rolls eyes, and remembers why talking to lambert is an exercise in futility, and points back to the trees remark earlier on the page*
IP: Logged |
As a direct rebuttal to much of your post, read today's column by George Will... not someone you can accuse of being "liberal."
IP: Logged |
Okay, Everard I read the Wills column and noted the thrust of his statement is that WMD did exist and are easily hidden and difficult to find:
quote:James Woolsey, President Clinton's first CIA director, suggests the following:
As war approached, Saddam, a killer but not a fighter, was a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not conquer Baghdad.
Based on his experience in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam assumed there would be a ground offensive only after prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties -- perhaps by blowing up some of his own hospitals -- to inflame world opinion, and count on his European friends to force a halt in the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, having destroyed his WMDs on the eve of war.
Or shortly after the war began. Saddam, suggests Woolsey, was stunned when Gen. Tommy Franks began the air and ground offenses simultaneously and then "pulled a Patton," saying, in effect, never mind my flanks, I'll move so fast they can't find my flanks. Saddam, Woolsey suggests, may have moved fast to destroy the material that was the justification for a war he intended to survive, and may have survived.
Such destruction need not have been a huge task. In Britain, where political discourse is far fiercer than in America, Tony Blair is being roasted about the missing WMDs by, among many others, Robin Cook, formerly his foreign secretary. Cook says: "Such weapons require substantial industrial plant and a large work force. It is inconceivable that both could have been kept concealed for the two months we have been in occupation of Iraq."
Rubbish, says Woolsey: Chemical or biological weapons could have been manufactured with minor modifications of a fertilizer plant, or in a plant as small as a microbrewery attached to a restaurant. The 8,500 liters of anthrax that Saddam once admitted to having would weigh about 8.5 tons and would fill about half of a tractor-trailer truck. The 25,000 liters that Colin Powell cited in his U.N. speech could be concealed in two trucks -- or in much less space if the anthrax were powdered.
It appears to me, that even if (as I opined) that there may not be any WMD found, that it is certainly plausible that there were WMD and carping about them is just carping. Wills' point is that pressure is such by the media and the Dems that it would behoove Bush to find some.
As for the jibes about there not being a Left wing media - you show me one single story from your praised balanced media that was not skewed to the Left when writing about Newt Gingrich in the last two years of his tenure. You have two years of published archives to sift through to find a single story that was fair or balanced. Several watchdog groups have said that was the case. prove them wrong.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not even sure why I bother...
Will specifically stated that the reason the war against Iraq was justifiable under Bush's doctrine of preemption, was their WMD. He also states they have not been found, and without that proof, Bush's doctrine of preemption, and the validity of the war in Iraq, are in question.
"To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very imperfect information. But preemption presupposes the ability to know things -- to know about threats with a degree of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than those for waging war. Some say the war was justified even if WMD are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is "better off" without Saddam Hussein. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny -- on to Burma? -- it is unacceptable to argue that Hussein's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for preemptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure -- so far -- to validate the war's premise about the threat posed by Hussein's WMD, but a long-term failure would unravel much of this president's policy and rhetoric."
"Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done."
The thrust of his column is that its possible, as suggested by woosely, hussein destroyed his weapons, BUT UNTIL WE ACCOUNT FOR WMD, Bush is in a position where he has screwed up, and screwed up badly.
I'm sorry Lambert. I have no respect left for you. THe thrust of wills column is no where near what you state it to be, and his conclusion should tip you off to that. He offers a possible explanation, because he believes Hussein did, at some point, have WMD. In fact, he thinks its possible that he had them until the beginning of the recent war. He also, and this is why he wrote the column, believes that it is urgently necessary for us to find the proof hussein had those weapons when we invaded.
In other words, you spin what you read SO BADLY, that you can't read a simple column in the newspaper that disagrees with your assessment of the situation, and not spin it so that it somehow fits your own twisted world perspective.
You blame the need for finding WMD on the democratic party, but, in fact, Will is stating NO SUCH THING. He never mentions any democrat other then Clinton, and he mentions Clinton to make the point that MANY world leaders and people who should know about Iraq's weapons capability believed Hussein had WMD.
Will states a MORAL NEED for the discovery, or discovery of concrete evidence, of WMD. That Bush's doctrine is jeapordized by the failure to meet the level of proof required for a government to adopt such a doctrine.
Thanks for the response, William. I couldn't have planned a response from you that so neatly showed how blind you are, and the extent to which you twist information to fit your own skewed world perspective.
IP: Logged |
Sorry, Everard, but others can read as well as you. and can come to their own conclusions. You have judged me and you are foolish for not understanding the points raised and for the logic behind the responses to your statements. It would be better if you actually read and took the time to see for yourself how your refusal to acknowledge your own shortsightedness labells you with your own judgement.
Reread the Wills article and understand that he did not condemn Bush for lying. He did say that it is important POLITICALLY for WMD to be found. You should understand what the difference is. Here's a hint: In 1998 Clinton bombed Iraq claiming WMD existed. No outcry or clamor for proof. Hussein admitted possession of WMD. Inspectors were pulled out of Iraq by the UN and our allies. UN admitted Hussein had WMD. Planes crashed into the Trade Towers and the Pentagon. We went to war against Terror. Bush's efforts were highly successful, and were reflected in popularity polls. We put inspectors back into Iraq - and Blix and Scott Ritter and others feud about their effectiveness. Democrats endorsed attack on Iraq until it is too successful then nit-pick anything they can. Two truckloads of liquid anthrax acknowledged by everyone to exist, but could've been dumped anywhere in a huge dessert to be covered over by sand storms and the Democrats want proof of it. Wills says the attacks are all the Democrats have, so until Bush is able to show concrete evidence of WMDs, he will suffer from their devisiveness and obstruction.
I find it comical that you base your pride in attacking the war on terrorism on an article from one conservative commentator and rip me into illogical shreds because I read what he said, and point out to you what it means. You can argue the point, but instead descend once again to politics of personal destruction calling me a lost cause, unable to see the forest for the trees, etc. Such tactics are not what this forum was created for. You should probably stick with Hatrack if you refuse to use proper debate skills and consistently resort to name-calling. We all note that your refusal to come up with a single fair and balanced report on Gingrich says that you couldn't, which derails your ridiculious claim that the Left-wing media doesn't exist.
Wills' article on the othetr hand, shows that a Right -wing media personality can say things across the board. Which brings us back to Hillary's book which you try so hard to avoid comment on as requested by this thread. I understand that even though she wrote this book as a politcal tool to explain away things that happened and will come up again in her future plans for office (She can in the future say these things were covered and answered in her book), she has officially stated she will not respond to political questions raised by the book.
Having her cake and eating it, too!
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Reread the Wills article and understand that he did not condemn Bush for lying."
I didn't say that he said Bush was lying. In fact, I don't believe I used "lie" anywhere on this thread. However, in order for you to "win" this argument, you find it necessary to recreate my statements so that they fit in with your world perspective of what a leftist is.
"He did say that it is important POLITICALLY for WMD to be found."
Yes, he did say it was politically important. Here are some other reasons he said it was important.
"But preemption presupposes the ability to know things -- to know about threats with a degree of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than those for waging war."
In other words, preemption requires a government to NOT make mistakes about their reasons for war, as war is a momentous decision.
"But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny -- on to Burma? -- it is unacceptable to argue that Hussein's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for preemptive war."
In other words, preemption requires something more then humanitarian efforts.
"Americans seem sanguine about the failure -- so far -- to validate the war's premise about the threat posed by Hussein's WMD, but a long-term failure would unravel much of this president's policy and rhetoric."
In other words, Bush's policy in iraq is not justifiable (in Will's own opinion) without the discovery of WMD, or at the very least knowledge of where those weapons went. Also stated here, by Will, is that the war was founded on the threat of Hussein with WMD.
Combined with the statement about having knowledge, these bits of information lead us to the conclusion that Will believes that without the discovery of WMD, we had no right to be in Iraq, and that Bush's policy was wrong.
Another of your statements. " Wills says the attacks are all the Democrats have, so until Bush is able to show concrete evidence of WMDs, he will suffer from their devisiveness and obstruction."
This is an outright lie. In fact, its a HUGE fabrication, without any POSSIBLY justification from the column referenced. If lying were a reason for banning, this would be exhibit one A for why you shouldn't be allowed to post on this site. As is, it just makes you look like a total bleeping idiot.
And just so I can completely unravel your entire argument, let me take one sentence from George Will's column, directly.
"For the president, the missing weapons are not a political problem"
Read that again Lambert.
This is NOT a political problem from Will's perspective.
I suggest you read the column again, take off your rose colored Republican glasses, take off the black-tinted Democratic glasses, and try to understand the point Will is making.
You obviously failed the first time. And just to pound that point in
"For the president, the missing weapons are not a political problem"
IP: Logged |
Everard, thanks for calling me an idiot again while still not understanding what you are reading. Let me try to lead you through it one last time.
quote:Hussein, forced by the defection of his son-in-law, acknowledged in the mid-1990s his possession of chemical and biological weapons. President Clinton, British, French and German intelligence agencies, and even Hans Blix (who tells the British newspaper the Guardian, "We know for sure that they did exist") have expressed certainty about Iraq's having WMD at some point.
A vast multinational conspiracy of bad faith, using fictitious WMD as a pretext for war, is a wildly implausible explanation of the failure to find WMD. What is plausible? James Woolsey, Clinton's first CIA director, suggests the following:
As war approached, Hussein, a killer but not a fighter, was a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not conquer Baghdad.
Based on his experience in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Hussein assumed there would be a ground offensive only after prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties -- perhaps by blowing up some of his own hospitals -- to inflame world opinion and could count on his European friends to force a halt in the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, having destroyed his WMD on the eve of war.
Or shortly after the war began. Hussein, suggests Woolsey, was stunned when Gen. Tommy Franks began the air and ground offenses simultaneously and then "pulled a Patton," saying, in effect, never mind my flanks, I'll move so fast they can't find my flanks. Hussein, Woolsey suggests, may have moved fast to destroy the material that was the justification for a war he intended to survive, and may have survived.
Such destruction need not have been a huge task.
What this explains, Everard, is how there can be WMD without evidence of it being there and without it being easily found. Please note that Wills used Woosley (Clinton's first CIA director) as the sounding board for this explanation - which may be why it is hard for you to unravel his logic. He is saying the evidence at the start of the war is sufficient for launching it - but that the political devisiveness from the Democrats since makes a need for it to be found.
Then Wills goes on to explain that it isn't that big a deal to the administration:
quote:For the president, the missing weapons are not a political problem. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, says Americans are happily focused on Iraqis liberated rather than WMD not found, so we "feel good about ourselves."
Wills ends the column after explaining how there was sufficient knowledge before the war to believe the WMD did exist, and how difficult it actually is to find such stuff which was probably disposed of in such a manner that the only evidence will be apochryphal stories which will be hard to prove or disprove from the people who may have done the disposal.
He warns the President not to discount the political pressure and ignore their attacks but to explain it:
quote:But unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action.
Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done.
Ev... line up the points now as they are presented.
WMDs existence before the war started is credible.
That Hussein got rid of the WMD before the war is credible.
That unless the war had begun, the WMD would still be ready for possible use.
That overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy.
It is in jeopardy because the opposition makes it out to be more than it is.
The administration sees no problem with explaining further, believing what is already evident should be sufficient, and pretty much ignores the left-wing attack.
Wills second guesses the administration and tells them to explain better what happened, or the policy of preemption will by damaged.
Now Ev, explaining better and not ignoring enemies who are skewing the message is not the same thing as finding WMDs.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
" but that the political devisiveness from the Democrats since makes a need for it to be found. "
See, Lambert, you're just a dupe. But I'm not sure who's pulling the wool over your eyes. The above may be YOUR belief, but its certainly not what Will was writing in this column. In fact, its not even CLOSE.
Will never mentions anything about political devisiveness in this column, he never mentions the democratic party. In fact, as I stated earlier... the only democrat he mentions is Bill Clinton, and the context for using Bill Clinton is to show that EVERYONE believes Hussein has WMD's. Something that I mentioned previously, and you're continued attempts to claim that I am stating Will states that perhaps Iraq did NOT have WMD's are, essentially, an attempt to put me into a position I didn't take in order to reduce my credibility.
And you didn't even lay out the column in a fashion that remotely resembles what Will is really doing.
Will never mentions ANYTHING that cuold justify these two comments as being a part of the column...
"It is in jeopardy because the opposition makes it out to be more than it is.
The administration sees no problem with explaining further, believing what is already evident should be sufficient, and pretty much ignores the left-wing attack."
NOTHING in this column justifies those statements, Lambert. Nothing. You simply are blinded by the right.
Will's entire conclusion?
"For the president, the missing weapons are not a political problem. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, says Americans are happily focused on Iraqis liberated rather than WMD not found, so we "feel good about ourselves." But unless America's foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action. Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done."
Okay, what has Everard posted in this thread so far? First he jumped in to argue TomD's position after Tom lost credibility for vacuous and un-called for name-callng. What was Ev's point? Only that I can't use logic as well as he can. According to him, when I am confronted with a point of debate, I dismiss it without understanding it. I think we all agree the shoe is on the other foot. I trot out corroborating source after source - take the time to point out what he should understand about the point, and 9 times out of 10, he responds with no acknowledgement that his earlier conjecture was disproven or even discussed.
He copied the Ornery penchant for responding on point by using prepost quotes, yet misuses that tool by arguing personality rather than facts. Here is one of his illogical points:
quote:...you so completely misread everything you claimed to have read concerning rockefeller, and have done that sort of thing with numerous other arguments on this site and hatrack, that its not worth anyone's time to argue facts with you. You ONLY accept facts that fit your preconceived notion of the world, going so far as to ignore facts presented in the same sources that you state back your opinion.
Now that is totally false and Ev knows it. When we discussed Rockefeller before, Ev claimed to be an expert on him - until I questioned him enough to learn he was just remembering High school and college history classes using the very same originally incorrect sources (subsequently changed by their authors with apologies for getting it wrong) that I had mentioned. Then he accused me of not having read them. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
His next point was to refute that Blumenthal and Hillary's books comport to the "Big Lie" method. How did he refute it? By agreeing.
quote:Yup, lots of people do this... including George Bush Jr.
(Notice how he doesn't get the President's name right either.) He later uses this to attack Bush on WMD in Iraq.
His next effort is to defend the Left when they accept known perjury and lies as if they were correct by attacking the innocent witnesses.
quote:[Wanniski's quote:] "Thus, when otherwise credible eyewitnesses claim that Bill Clinton is a reckless womanizer, a hysterical chorus rises up and demands a burden of proof rarely ever required in a civil court - they want to see the DNA. The Hard-Left pacifies their faithful by impugning the credibility of truthful witnesses"
[Everard's quote:] The hard-right does this too, for example, the last 2 years of judicial nominations.
Now if you're like me, I don't understand this last reasoning. The big news lately has been the Democrats' refusal to allow any nominees to be voted on. How does defamation of witnesses come into play here?
Then Ev tried to be rhetorically cute by taking a quote which is true and paraphraseing it to make me look bad, even though he later denies its merits.
quote:[Wanniski's quote:] "Sid and Hillary continually allege that every scandal during the Clintons eight long years in office was the product of a well-financed, mean-spirited Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, determined to bring down well-meaning progressives like Bill and Hillary Clinton"
[Ev's quote:] William Lambert continually alleges that every scandal during Republican Administrations, and every attack on the Bush administration, is the product of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy. In fact, the entire Right Wing still buys into the tired notion of the "Leftist Media," despite the lack of ANY evidence.
But then he said:
quote:No, you've never espoused that, but then, I didn't say you did. Rather, I stated that this is what you DO.
(Nice equivocation!) My response would later be to wonder how he could make a statement so unsupported by fact and use it to try to turn the tables? How much evidence on media bias has Ev missed or ignored?
At the end of this post, Ev bregged about how well he countered my every earlier statement and how easy it will be for him to do so if called upon to do so in the future.
quote:ETc. etc. etc.
I could do this with EVERY line of that review, Lambert. And EVERY line of your subsequent posts. But that would be really boring.
Ev's next post was better in that he was on point about gays in the military, an issue brought up in more detail by Knight Ender, when I asked if he endorsed the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Ev responded by saying:
quote:THe Clinton administration didn't go as far as it SHOULD have, largely because of the Christian evangelicals.
My point was that the Clintons overrode their own military's recommendations. They did not follow what their own military asked for. Evangelicals aside, the problem was from within, not from without. It is one thing to say that Christians opposed gay rights in the military - it is another to unfairly say they caused any of Clinton's actions. As far as I can tell, the public-opinion polls were the only telling factor the administration looked at.
In his next post, Ev revisited the Rockefeller thing, but passed on supplying any facts or citations to corroborate anything he said.
quote:Which is why I claim you can't see the other trees for the one you're staring directly at. If you had read, carefully, the books you claimed to have read, you couldn't make either of the above statements.
More laughter by initimidation debating... Calling names, put downs, and slurs. No "there" there.
The next issue he raised was to explain his statement of the "big lie" and how it is illustrated by the last 2 years of Bush judicial appointments. ??? Never answered, just said he didn't mean Estrada, then went on to propose other "big lie" ideas aaginst the Bush administration which are all arguable. He sounds like Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf:
"God will roast their stomachs in hell at the hands of Iraqis."
"The Americans, they always depend on a method what I call ... stupid, silly. All I ask is check yourself. Do not in fact repeat their lies."
"We have them surrounded in their tanks"
"The American press is all about lies! All they tell is lies, lies and more lies!"
I'm still waiting for the explanation in the Will's article of how there is a credible explanation for lack of finding WMD. Is Will saying there is a credible reason for not finding WMD but yet he concludes the President MUST find some anyway? Does that make sense to you? You explain to me. If it is credible NOT to locate a stash of anthrax or suchlike stuff why is it necessary to find it, except to answer attacks from those demanding it be found? Broaching the topic of media bias, Ev said:
quote:Again and again, the right has attempted to show a right wing media... and what consistently comes up is that the vast majority of stories lean slightly left on social issues and slightly right on economics issues.
What I've pointed out is that this is not media bias. If a reporter speaks fairly and on point about social issues or economic issues, there is no bias, whether the facts go either right or left. What is wrong is when a fact which may support a conservative issue is distorted or lied about. Vice-versa, too. Instead of droning on about one article by George Will (who has written many articles confirming the Left wing bias, as well as the left wing attempt to invent a non- existant right-wing boas) to an example of media equanimity, Ev should probably go straight to the source and discuss Eric Alterman - the journalistic guru of "I am rubber, you are glue" to media bias. As you probably know Eric wrote a book about media bias. The leftwing mwdia praise it and offer citations from him whenever possible. Many observers, however, evaluate it as another "hit-piece" where a liberal writer goes after individuals instead of building a cogent argument and bolstering it with solid facts. If that sounds familiar, it is because that is what has been done here to a large degree. This is a direct debate Eric had with Brent Bozell from Media Research Center, who has documented the Leftwing media bias up, down, and sideways.
Instead of responding with examples of Rightwing-media bias, Eric Alterman attacks one statement by Brent Bozell, misstates its premiss as proving him to be homophobic... just another debate which should turn on logic but nonetheless comes down to personal attack by the liberal debater. In fact what Bozell was chastizing the New York Times for was in appointing an aggressive liberal lobbyist to a top editorial position. Yet Alterman spun that to make it appear that Bozell was attacking a gay man for being gay. It may be true that the liberal lobbyist in question was gay, but what gives Alterman the right to call Bozell as gay-bashing when all he attacked was his liberal bias?
quote:..."Brent and Other Conservatives Do Not Understand Gay People." ...The mere fact that three of the top political reporters for the New York Times in recent years have been openly gay men is mistaken as evidence of bias by some in the conservative media establishment-and no doubt by some Americans as well. Not long ago, Brent Bozell III attacked the New York Times for appointing a gay man to a top editorial position, suggesting that this "signals that [Times editors are] promoting their newspaper as an aggressive liberal lobbying tool not only to prevent Republican campaign victories, but to pave a smooth and silky path for cultural relativism as well."...Bozell apparently, like President Bush, does not know many openly gay individuals, hence he has trouble believing that one might be able to separate sexuality from professional commitment.
Please note is was Alterman who mentions the lobbyist being gay - not Bozell. Alterman flunks out of any good junior high school debate class because he did not show that Bozell made any homophobic statements. Alterman failed to rehabilitate the liberal lobbyist from being a liberal lobbyist and instead spent the entire article spinning his being gay instead of him not being an agenda-driven liberal.
Brent Bozell rebutted Alterman:
quote:To all the years of evidence of liberal-media bias, Eric Alterman can only offer more noise. [Which ia an apt answer to the non-specific statement of Alterman, then he goes on in response to his book.]
He confesses hopelessness at converting this conservative audience, but then digs his own grave with sneering dismissal: "really smart" conservatives don't believe this "silly nonsense" about liberal bias.
What he doesn't offer is evidence from the content of the news. How can Alterman explain this "news" report from Dan Rather (March 16, 1995)? "The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor." What Rather reported as the objective truth was the "silly nonsense." It's also drop-dead evidence of liberal bias.
Instead of producing data, Alterman turns to Rich Bond, that bastion of conservatism, to state that Republicans were "working the refs" in 1992. As if that a) worked; or b) Bond's claim proved it was only a ploy on the neutral media. The reality is far different. The MRC found a jaw-dropping difference in network convention coverage in the summer of '92: While Democrats were never criticized for their negative tone, network reporters discussed or asked about the GOP's negative tone on 70 occasions. That was just in prime time.
In fact, the press decimated the Republicans. CNN's Bernard Shaw said Dan Quayle's convention address was "very petulant" and "implies Clinton is some kind of guerrilla, or saboteur, what have you...it seems that he's saying you're not as American as I am, your blood is not as red as mine." Over at the Democratic convention, Jesse Jackson was comparing Quayle to baby-killing King Herod, and none of the network types batted an eye, including Shaw. So much for all that ref-working.
James Baker? The ultimate media leaker is the last person who will criticize the press, period. Baker said that "I don't think we had anything to complain about" in terms of press coverage. Did Baker not remember a thing called Iran-Contra? But never mind Baker. But never mind Baker. What about Alterman? How can anyone dispute the anti-Reagan bias that piled up there? Answer: You simply ask politicians and journalists about their vague recollections about news coverage from years ago. But that's conjecture, not content analysis. In other words, more noise.
Pat Buchanan suggested to the Los Angeles Times that the media have been fair to him. He must have missed the August 31, 1992 Time magazine summing up his Houston convention speech: "Patrick Buchanan's darkly apocalyptic speech Monday night all but raised the specter of race war." More to the point: If Alterman is going to quote Buchanan on the subject, why not use the hundreds of quotes available showing Buchanan denouncing liberal media bias?
Alterman gets it wrong on Bill Kristol, too. He did not deny the existence of a liberal media. He denied its impact. Yet even there I'd disagree with Mr. Kristol and offer as my evidence his own brief career at ABC News. Brought on as the analytical balance to one of Alterman's best friends, George Stephanopoulos, he was increasingly marginalized as Stephanopoulos became the sole political analyst the network used outside of This Week. Ultimately, once George was somehow designated as Mr. Objective, Kristol was dumped. I'd say that has impact, wouldn't you?
See what I mean by noise?
Here's an example of logic processing proven facts in the proper way to lay down a telling argument (Note that this is the opposite of how Alterman does it): Associated (With Liberals) Press by L. Brent Bozell III April 29, 2003
quote:It was a perfectly absurd moment. Patrick Guerrierro, the new head of the gay-left Log Cabin Republicans, sat on a sedate Saturday morning C-SPAN set and declared it was a shame that Sen. Rick Santorum distracted us all from the Iraq war with his hurtful comments on homosexuality.
This was not just absurd because the Log Cabin Republicans did everything but throw balloons of blood at Santorum to get the story humming -- in alliance with the Human Rights Campaign and other gay-left intimidators. It was absurd because the biggest promoter of the Santorum story was the socially liberal Associated Press.
AP spent a week promoting this fraction of Santorum’s interview: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."AP hyped this comparison by adding the word "gay" between "consensual" and "sex."
Santorum’s point was philosophical and legal: Do we want an absolutely unlimited right to privacy? That’s where we could be headed with the Texas sodomy case now before the Court.
The absurdity began as the interview was twisted beyond recognition. What better outlet for that than AP? Remember their track record. In the fall of 1998, AP made an obscure murder victim in Laramie, Wyoming a household name, turning the brutal killing of homosexual Matthew Shepard into grist for a countless series of editorials, books, plays, and TV "docudramas." A year later, AP shamelessly avoided national coverage of the murder of a 13-year-old Arkansas boy, Jesse Dirkhising. He died from suffocation after being bound, gagged with underwear in his mouth, blindfolded, taped to the bed, and sodomized by one gay man while another gay man watched. AP inspired no books, no plays, no movies on this largely anonymous young victim.
Now Santorum has run into the AP’s anti-"homophobe" buzzsaw. Supporters pointed out that the reporter who plucked the "intolerant" remarks out of an hour-long interview was Lara Jakes Jordan, the wife of Jim Jordan, who recently headed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and now runs John Kerry’s presidential campaign. Isn’t that noteworthy? Journalists whined this was "blaming the messenger," and lamented cries of bias based on the mere whisper of marital associations.
But look at the story, and how this allegedly objective wire service promoted it like they were selling sunscreen at spring break. You could call the week of April 20 Santorum Resignation Week at AP.
1. The first story was "Family Values Drive Santorum’s Politics," a chance for Mrs. Jordan to explain how the senator’s beliefs are at odds with the Constitution. She summarized his view: "Homosexuality, feminism, liberalism all undermine the family. Even parts of the Constitution can harm the family." Note the utterly untrue liberal assumption that the Constitution presently insures the right to sodomy.
2. Unsurprisingly, the next day’s campaign led with "Gay Groups Urge GOP To Remove Santorum." Mrs. Jordan began by explaining the gay lobby was "fuming over Sen. Rick Santorum’s comparison of homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest, and adultery."
3. On the third day, AP really pressed the accelerator on the story. "Santorum Seeks to Clarify Remarks on Gays," read the inaccurate headline. Santorum did not seek to clarify, saying: "I can’t deny that’s how I feel."
4. AP also reported "Dems Call for Santorum to Resign Post." This story didn’t have Mrs. Jordan’s byline – or anyone else’s – but it did have suspicious fingerprints, because the DSCC, Mr. Jordan’s old office, was leading the resignation parade. Several paragraphs later, Mr. Jordan’s new office kicked in. "Separately...John Kerry issued a statement."
5. AP also released a transcript of the gay-related section of the interview, so all of Washington could pick up on the story and presumably be horrified at Santorum’s traditionalism.
6. It got increasingly desperate on Day Four: "Dean Calls for Santorum to Resign Post." Far-left presidential candidate Howard Dean, Vermont’s guru of gay marriage, objected? How newsworthy.
7. Day Five was pure giggles: "Utah Sect Leader Criticizes Santorum." An 89-year-old polygamist from Utah was Pundit For A Day to keep the story going. This was news?
8. In case Howard Dean wasn’t earth-shattering enough, AP added "Chafee Chides Santorum for Gay Remarks." Liberal Lincoln, a Log Cabin Republican supporter, criticizing Santorum? Shocking.
9. Finally, on day six, one pro-Santorum headline: "Bush Praises Santorum As ‘Inclusive Man.’" Note this was the AP campaign’s first use of quotation marks in a headline.
10. On the seventh day, the story expired, with "Sen. Santorum Seen Likely Surviving Flap." That’s clearly not the outcome the AP’s Washington flap manufacturers wanted. But it died because no one outside AP and the radical left wanted to see Santorum get sacked.
Gay-Left Politics in Print: Jerry Thacker and Sarah Pettit are an interesting pair to see how the Washington Post-Newsweek empire wrote about them. With Thatcher, who was a fair and unaffected conservative, he was reviled as homophobic. The Post reporters made up statements and attributed them to him and then had him fired because of the non-existent statements.
quote:Reporter Ceci Connolly suggested Thacker was unfit for government service because of several words he had allegedly used. He called AIDS a "gay plague." He described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" and asserted that "Christ can rescue the homosexual."
Connolly didn’t put these comments in context. On the Web site of his Scepter Institute, a biography of Thacker explained that in 1986, "He knew vaguely about the ‘gay plague’ known as AIDS, but it seemed a distant threat." But then he, his wife, and daughter contracted the disease through a tainted transfusion. The Post story did not explain that the plague quote a) did not come out of Thacker’s mouth, as implied, nor that b) it was put in quotes in this biography. By that standard, Connolly could be deprived of future government work, given that she, too, used that quote.
So Thacker wasn’t really "quoted" on "gay plague." What about the "deathstyle"? Connolly did explain in print how she got that one: from a Web site summary of Thacker’s remarks on AIDS at his alma mater, Bob Jones University. Once again, Connolly couldn’t find Thacker saying it. So how can she state as fact that Thacker used the term, instead of attributing it directly – and solely – to the university staffer trying to summarize? She can because she wants to. Being a Post reporter means never having to worry about being factually sloppy.
With a war coming up and several million other issues in government more pressing than this, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer did not check out the Post’s manipulation of these remarks before the subject surfaced. But reporters in the briefing room wanted Thacker out before he got in. The questions poured out: "A member of the administration's AIDS advisory council has called AIDS ‘a gay plague’... Does the President condone that kind of language?...What qualifications did Jerry Thatcher have for the job, to be on this council, and why is he still on it?"
An unprepared Fleischer scrambled to placate the reporters: "No, the President does not share that view; the President has a totally opposite view...That remark is far removed from what the president believes." Thacker’s resignation letter soon landed on HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson’s desk. Score one for the Post.
Pettit, on the other hand, was a focused, militant gay-rights activists who was hired as a Newseek arts and entertainment editor.
quote:David Gates fondly remembered her political animus: "at the morning editorial meetings, she’d be protesting any rightward deviationism in Newsweek’s political coverage." In an internal memo, Whitaker declared "While she often served as the ‘loyal opposition’ in challenging much of what was written in Newsweek, she had a deep commitment to the institution....we'll miss the intellectual honesty and moral passion that Sarah brought to so many discussions around the editors ‘table.’"
" Then he accused me of not having read them. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!"
See, even here you don't understand.
I told you, multiple times, I read all the sources you posted in that first argument, after the argument (ie within the last year) and that they didn't say what you claimed they said.
Whatever. You're a fool, Lambert, and you don't even realize that you had to paint Will's article with your own rose colored glasses, even though he doesn't even mention what you claim to be his salient point.
IP: Logged |
You know, I think I'd just like to state that, if one goes back and checks all the posts and responses Lambert posts in that thread, one will find he took every one of the statements he quotes me as making completely out of the context, often attaching remarks I made to comments that they were not directed at.
Whatever. Lambert, I'm going to continue laughing at you. That last post of yours further demonstrates my point, to anyone who cares enough to look back at the record.
IP: Logged |
Sorry Everard, but your bluff has been called. All the posts I took from your posts were directly fron your posts as written and with no embellishments or being "taken out of context". Pathetic attempt to weasel out of being wrong. As to Rockefeller - you did not read the books you claim to have done and you are not coprrect. Lying about it is a pretty lame way of refuting points.
Here's what you have to do... (I feel like I'm talking to an adolescent...) Type in the specific facts that corroborate what you say proves me to be wrong. Calling names and claiming you have already done so when you haven't is lame.
You prove to me that J.D. Rockefeller didn't reduce the cost of kerosene for millions of American consumers so they didn't have to use whale oil in their lanterns, furnaces, and ovens. (Please also accord him the unintended consequence of saving most whale species from extermination.) Then you prove to all the people reading this that there was no 30 year oil price war with the Russians in Baku (1885-1915), which drove Rockefeller to continually reduce prices in order to compete in international markets; all the while balancing thousands of American jobs.
Be sure you explain away the political appointees who were robbing everyone blind with a government enfranchised monopoly before he offered his services as a market-driven alternative. This is the kind of thing I posted and talk about. What are you talking about? Be specific and prove how good you are. If I'm wrong, then I'll certainly acknowledge that and will have learned something.
As it stands - you keep posting the same tired non-rebuttal every time you post. Don't call me wrong. Be polite and prove your points. Or go back to Hatrack.
Posts: 1372 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |