I have a question? why was LIEberman given a standing ovation,when he was returned to the SENATE

Stories

I have a question? why was LIEberman given a standing ovation,when he was returned to the SENATE?

HaloScan.com – Comments:

” I also agree with whoever it was who lamented the widespread inability to view the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in shades of grey rather than black and white.”

In my humble opinion, it is the very fact that many do see shades of grey which allows the Israelis to continue to subvert a settlement.

There is nothing grey about the need for Israel to comply with international law and countless UNSC resolutions and return to behind the pre1967 borders.

There is nothing grey about Israeli troops occupying the Palestinian Territories, parts of Lebanon and a large chunk of Syria.

There isn’t much grey about US taxpayers giving this rogue state about $10 billion a year to support these occupations when there are so many shortfalls at home for worthy causes.

Shades of grey are what the Israeli propagandists are trying to achieve. Confusion = inaction. Inaction = the status quo.
Justaguy | Homepage

"[M]any in the American media … have a vested interest in exaggerating the violence as much as pos

Stories

by Eric Boehlert

Warbloggers endured a bleak November, watching their political heroes suffer the loss of both houses of Congress, while President Bush’s approval ratings fell toward Nixonian levels, the mainstream media finally conceded the battle for Iraq had broken down into a civil war, and even war architect Donald Rumsfeld was tossed overboard. Everything warbloggers had championed over the past five years — waging war with Islamists and creating a permanent Republican majority inside the Beltway — came undone, and the chronically incorrect warbloggers, angry ideologues who make Sean Hannity look like a man of reason, slipped into the realm of the laughingstock.

Gassed His Own People

Stories

Gassed His Own People:

The Justice Department announced new rules yesterday that will make it harder for prosecutors to bring criminal charges against companies, bending to intense pressure from business groups that claim the government has overreached in its pursuit of financial malfeasance.

In presenting the revised rules, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty called the changes a substantial and direct response to a lobbying drive by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, among others.

Since devastating bankruptcies at Enron and WorldCom prompted Congress to pass a stringent corporate accountability law four years ago, business interests increasingly have pushed back on efforts to police their operations, arguing that the government has imposed too many costs on companies with too few benefits for investors.

George Will Distorts WaPo's Own Reporting To Smear Jim Webb |

Stories

TPMCafe:

George Will Distorts WaPo’s Own Reporting To Smear Jim Webb
By Greg Sargent | bioThis is one of the rankest displays of journalistic dishonesty I’ve seen in some time. In today’s Washington Post column, George Will assails Dem Senator-elect Jim Webb over his now-well-known confrontation with President Bush at a White House reception. To do so, Will badly distorts the reporting his own paper did on the episode, and it’s quite clear his distortions were entirely deliberate.

First, let’s check out how Will recounts the episode in his column.

Will writes:

Wednesday’s Post reported that at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, Webb “tried to avoid President Bush,” refusing to pass through the reception line or have his picture taken with the president. When Bush asked Webb, whose son is a Marine in Iraq, “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “I’d like to get them [sic] out of Iraq.” When the president again asked “How’s your boy?” Webb replied, “That’s between me and my boy.”

Will says the episode demonstrates Webb’s “calculated rudeness toward another human being” — i.e., the President — who “asked a civil and caring question, as one parent to another.”

But do you notice something missing from Will’s recounting of the episode?

Here’s how the Washingon Post actually reported on the episode the day before Will’s column:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia’s newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn’t long before Bush found him.

“How’s your boy?” Bush asked, referring to Webb’s son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

“I’d like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President,” Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

“That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said. “How’s your boy?”

“That’s between me and my boy, Mr. President,” Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

See what happened? Will omitted the pissy retort from the President that provoked Webb. Will cut out the line from the President where he said: “That’s not what I asked you.” In Will’s recounting, that instead became a sign of Bush’s parental solicitiousness: “The president again asked `How’s your boy?'”

Will’s change completely alters the tenor of the conversation from one in which Bush was rude first to Webb, which is what the Post’s original account suggested, to one in which Webb was inexplicably rude to the President, which is how Will wanted to represent what happened.

It’s virtually impossible to see how that could have been the result of mere incompetence on Will’s part. Rather, it’s very clear that Will cut the line because it was an inconvenient impediment to his journalistic goal, which was to portray Webb as a “boor” who was rude to the Commander in Chief, and to show that this new upstart is a threat to Washington’s alleged code of “civility and clear speaking” (his words). On that score, also note that in the original version, Webb said “Mr. President” twice — and neither appeared in Will’s version.

You’d think such an obvious misrepresentation would irritate the Post’s top brass. You’d think they would be annoyed with Will for sullying their pages with such journalistic misbehavior. Indeed, it’s kind of amusing to imagine what went through Will’s mind as he cut and pasted the Post’s original reporting and then hit the delete button to get rid of the inconvenient quote. Did he think to himself, “Yeah, this is bad, but no one will notice”? Or did he think, “What the heck — people will notice, but it won’t affect my professional or social standing, so who cares”?

Paging Howard Kurtz: Do you consider your colleague’s effort journalistically acceptable? I don’t. This was a really bad one.

"Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around TIME."

Stories

firedoglake: 12/01/2005 – 12/31/2005:

Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of “Karl doesn’t have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt.” I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, “Are you sure about that? That’s not what I hear around TIME

War Criminals List: Part Two

Stories

Dan Burton, Bob Dornan, John Cornyn, Tom Delay, Jean Schmidt, Rush Limbaugh, David Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Reagan, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Bob Novak, Cal Thomas, Glenn Beck, Mancow, John Fund, Peggy Noonan, Larry Kudlow, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Kate O’Beirne, Rich Lowry, Byron York, Chris Wallace, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer…and on and on.


A New Type Of Fascism

Stories

Crooks and Liars » 2006 » December » 15

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday the world faces “a new type of fascism’’ and likened critics of the Bush administration’s war strategy to those who tried to appease the Nazis in the 1930s. In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration’s critics as suffering from “moral or intellectual confusion’’ about what threatens the nation’s security. Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., a former Army officer and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in an interview Tuesday that “no one has misread history more than’’ Rumsfeld. `It’s a political rant to cover up his incompetence,’’ said Reed, a longtime critic of Rumsfeld’s handling of the war.

powered by performancing firefox

House Republicans blame their incompetence on Dems:

Stories

The Carpetbagger Report » Blog Archive » House Republicans blame their incompetence on Dems:

I think we all need to be a bit more sensitive here and stop offending those who have done us no harm.

I’m talking about:

1) your lying sacks of shit,
2) your fuckwits,
3) those who are batshit crazy (an ATF for me)
4) creeps (an oldie but a goodie)
5) fuckbrains (a newbie but destined to be a classic)
6) punkasses,
7) incompetent zeros
8) clowns

I’m sure there are a few that I’m forgetting but no insult is intended to them.

These people have their own problems – can’t we just leave them alone? I think calling Republicans “Republicans” is demeaning and offensive enough

Carter back in the 70s (the killer rabbit); Dukakis in the 80s (tank); Clinton in the 90s (haircut)

Stories

The Washington Monthly:

Yes, and even little ole jim had it right with Carter back in the 70s (the killer rabbit); Dukakis in the 80s (tank); Clinton in the 90s (haircut).
The MSM go along for the frivolous ride sometimes. And, no, I cannot think of comparable example in their treatment of Republican nominees.
The idea to paint the opponent as someone who cannot be entirely trusted because they are rather…. odd somehow. And the oddity must be due to personal problems. This strategy works best with a relatively unknown person, somebody who is a blank slate. You get to paint them as an oddball.