Comments Posted By Turnabout
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 20 Comments
APPALLING DISHONESTY FROM OLBERMAN
Moran: "Should we tell Keith and his crew that their ammunition to prove incompetence and malfeasance comes from the press and therefore negates the “Bush is getting a pass†meme?"
Your assuming Olberman's reference to "getting a pass" is referring to the lack of criticism from the press. Maybe Olberman is referring to getting a pass from congressional oversight. In which case he is exactly right. Even with all the examples provided by the press of incompetence and malfeasance by the Bush administration, not to mention down right dishonesty, congress sees no reason to hold the administration to account for anything.
Which is exactly why the Republicans must go!
Olberman puts the "balance" in Fox News' "Fair and Balanced." Balancing Hanity, O'Reily, Krauthammer and Barns who read daily from Carl Roves talking points memo...
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 26.09.2006 @ 14:11
Dale,
I wasn't trying to prove a conspiracy, I was taking exception with Rick's use of the phrase "legitimate political activity." He says that like what was done to Clinton was just good healthy politics and democracy. While what the Republicans were engaged in may have not been illegal it wasn't very ethical or good for the country.
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 25.09.2006 @ 14:35
David Brock, now of Media Matters, at the time of Clinton's impeachment a rightwing hatchet-man, (author of the "trooper-gate" story and other spurious tales) tells a story about his looking around the well of the congress at the beginning of the impeachment hearings and seeing all the players that he knew--conspired?--colluded?--participated in "legitimate political activity," to bring events to that moment. He tells how Republicans recruited Paula Jones to file her lawsuit with the intention of laying a trap that would catch Clinton lying under oath. Brock recalls that at that moment, in the well of congress, he had a sickening feeling that told him, 'this is not right.'
I fully expect a smear of Brock to follow, but I also believe that honest minded people hearing him tell his story find him credible and contrite.
Invoking the word conspiracy and snickering with a condescending grin is a classic rightwing deflection of any bad behavior that would require 2 or more conservatives to pull off. But, it doesn't disprove anything. Just because Moran projects his sense of values and fair play onto the power brokers he defends does not mean that they actually share those values no matter how much Rick might wish it to be true.
Democrats have had to sit and have the collective conservative beefy finger being wagged at them while be scolded about not protecting America and being weak on terror when our own intel reveals that it is the conservatives own policies that are making us less safe by the day. So excuse us for finding it refreshing when one of ours turns the table and wags back.
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 25.09.2006 @ 11:17
IRAQ STUDY GROUP TO RECOMMEND "QUIT OR COMMIT"
Moran: "Given its makeup, it is more than likely that the ISG was set up to provide our national leaders as well as members of both parties political cover for an Iraq exit."
Why should the Democrats need political cover, they didn't create this mess. It was you rightwing nut jobs thirsty for revenge over 9/11 that pushed us into this ill advised war. Now your looking for someone to share the blame with. You constantly insinuating that liberals are too dumb understand what real "chickenhawk" men like you know needs to be done.
John Murtha is no chickenhawk, nor is he a dove. He is a real military man and he didn't need any political cover to stand up and speak the truth. It's over in Iraq. Unless the U.S. is willing to put 150-250,000 more troops in Iraq it will not be able to secure Iraq. It's just that simple. He didn't blink, I might add, when your kind hurled cut-and-run or defeatocrat or what ever other sophomoric slogans you were willing to play political games with at the expense of the lives of American troops.
Moran: "President Kennedy said,... “As soon as we can put someone in power who will ask us to leave.†Perhaps Bush should keep that story in mind when James Baker and the ISG come calling after the election."
Yeah, look how well Vietnam turned out. And don't forget Sistani asked the U.S. to leave soon after Baghdad fell. Maybe we've over stayed our welcome.
This war is different in many ways from Vietnam, but exactly the same in one way, the best and the brightest got it totally wrong...
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 21.09.2006 @ 18:40
"THE PATH TO 9/11" SCRUTINZED UNFAIRLY
All right I give you the fact that he droped the sentence about the Cole, but that's not misquoting. It's more like selective quoting and certainly not calumny = (a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone).
Your upset with the style Blumenthal used to tell his story, but your not disputing the basic facts that the evangelical religious group, David Horowitz and other conservative types networked together to make this production, Designed to air on the five year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which coincided with the political Bush address in an election year where Republicans are on the ropes politically. Additionally the only thing they have going for themselves is 'strong on terror.' If you don't think that adds up to a political ploy, your being disingenuous.
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 13.09.2006 @ 18:04
Blumenthal writes "religious right group" and Moran says "cabal." Blumenthal quotes Nowrasteh word for word and Moran calls it calumny. No scare words there. Blumenthal titles his piece "right-wing network" and Moran writes "vast right-wing conspiracy" in his previous article about The Path to 9/11 controversy.
Blumthal puts together the pieces of a good story about how right-wingers team up to produce a "docu-drama" that has a scene where the Afghan Northern Alliance and a few CIA guys have bin Laden surrounded and the Clinton White House nixes the attack. Then the Alliance leader asks the CIA guy, "Are there any men in Washington? Or are they all cowards?" The whole scene is indisputably fictitious. Of course the implication is Democrats are weak on defense. Liberals are supposed to sit still and take it, right?
Then the evening culminates with Bush making a prime time 9/11 address to the nation where he tells us that, although there is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq--Iraq is where the central fight against the people that perpetuated 9/11. And, anybody who says we should leave Iraq is weak on terrorism. Okay
His best line, though, is: "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad." Every American should raise an eyebrow as how did the safety of America get reduced to what happens in the streets of Baghdad?
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 13.09.2006 @ 17:18
9/10: A DEFINITIONAL DAY FOR THE LEFT
"We are at war" with who? Terror? Terrorists? Muslims? al Qaeda? Talliban? Iraqi Sunni Insurgents? Iraqi Shiite militia? Hezbollah? Hamas? Iran? Enemies of Israel? Jihadists?
You people make it sound so simple to understand. Like the enemy is so clearly defined and the battle plan so obvious. Well it's not. After the attacks of 9/11 the world generally felt that going after the perpetrators was a justified war, liberals and Democrats included. But when it came to Iraq and the neocon "plan for a new American century" and things started to fall apart. Democracy was going to the cure all for the Middle East problem. After spending over $300 billion dollars, straining our military to its limits, killing tens of thousands Iraqis (half of them children), over 2.600 dead soldiers and almost 20,000 wounded, we have a democracy. The brave people of Iraq went to the polls risking their lives to vote. And the winner is--SCIR or the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution. Whoops!
You want simple? Here's simple: American foreign policy either increases the number of terrorists or decreases them. There seems to no doubt that the current policy is dramatically increasing Jihadists. Previously Jihadists were a minor radical element in the Arab world. Today Jihad has become mainstream in the Arab world because of the Iraq war.
BTW, After the UK bombing plot was rolled up a few weeks ago George Will wrote, 'John Kerry was right. Combating terrorism is mainly a matter of intelligence and law enforcement.'
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 11.09.2006 @ 03:44
I just read the Blumenthal's article and also did a word search on the page. The words "vast," "conspiracy," or "evil" do not appear in this article. Perhaps it is you who have exaggerated the Blumenthal story out of proportion. Most of your arguments and objections were really not germane to his story.
I just saw ABC's This Week with Kean, Ben-Venista, Gorelick and Lehman from the 9/11 commission. Stephanopoulos, an ABC employee, said that "parts of the docu-drama were fictionalized." The fictionalization took a specific political bias in the accounts of the Clinton and Bush administrations' handling of matters of terrorism, which were the opposite of the 9/11 report. Gov. Kean was couching his endorsement carefully and walking it back a little.
Blumenthatl's recount of events and statements in his story seemed well sourced and coherent. There were no paranoid rantings or expressions of fear of religious believers, just statements of fact.
If the advantage of the distortions in the Path to 9/11 favored the Democrats you would be doing 5000 words on the liberal Hollywood elite. Admit it.
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 10.09.2006 @ 13:54
IT'S GOT TO GET WORSE BEFORE IT GETS BETTER
You got one thing right, that is the administration and the military leadership are trying to "put the best face" possible, i.e. spin, on the situation in Iraq. One of the characteristics of their 'making progress' talk is that it has been consistently about six months behind reality. When Gen. Abizade uttered the words "civil war" it was already a done deal.
What you failed to take into account in your conclusion that "killing" al-Sadr is "the price for a more stable Iraq," is that so far there has been no Shiite insurgency. Sure, in 04 al-Sadr did try to take on the Americans, but the Shiite community prevailed on him with the help of Sistanni not to fight the occupation. Taking on al-Sadr and his army now would break up the Shiite community and the day there is a Shiite insurgency is hell for America.
A couple of points about George the Destroyer and the cabal of militaristic Zionist neocons that manipulate him and you I might add:
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 30.08.2006 @ 08:21
1) Operation Iraqi Freedom has only managed to create a political stalemate in Iraq and the inevitable civil war. The only reason there hasn't been a Shiite insurgency is they knew they would be in power after elections so why not let the Americans fight the Sunnis under the rubrics of Saddamists and Bathists.
2) America can not solve this problem alone, we need the help of the regional players and that includes Iran. Refusing to talk to Iran and continuously threaten them with war only insures failure in Iraq.
3) The presidents condescending retort, "I let the generals on the ground tell me what needs to be done" is a catch 22. First of all, it is side-stepping his responsibility as commander and chief, the generals take their orders from him, not the other way around. So when the president says, "As long as I'm president we will stay in Iraq," any general that wants to keep his career in tact will never say what we need to do is strategic redeployment.
4) Anyone who thinks the way to fight terrorism is to drop bombs on Muslims is nuts.
BUSH & ISRAEL: SHOULDER TO SHOULDER, HIP TO HIP
You people make me want to puke! Calling Noam Chomsky an anti Semite has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, especially when he was a victim of anti Semitism himself. The whole premise of anti Semitism is so off base in this argument. The idea that criticism of the Israeli government must be a product of Jew haters really exposes your ignorance and is more cover for your war mongering than anything else.
Rick's sycophantic praise of Bush as a pillar of strength and courage making a historic visionary stand for good over evil is beyond the pale. Look, torturing another human being is the most evil thing there is and Bush seems quite comfortable with that. Which, by the way, also makes him a hypocrite as he sighted Saddam's "torture rooms" as a pretext for war. And anyone that condons torture does not really believe in God and certainly does not fear God.
Comment Posted By Turnabout On 4.08.2006 @ 02:29
