I just got finished reading an article on the 9/11 Commission in the October 2004 Harper's and it has me furiously angry.
I used to be one of those people who said, "Well, say what you will about the President, but he THOUGHT there were WMDs there. He didn't lie, he was just wrong." Not that it excuses the poor war planning, but it's something.
After reading this article, let me say it.
GEORGE W. BUSH IS A LIAR.
Specifically, he lied when he said, to the 9/11 Commission, that "if his (the President's) advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they (the government) would have moved to take care of it."
That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission Report.
Also in the 9/11 Commission Report are dozens of examples of the President's advisers, verbally and in writing, that there are Al Queda cells in the United States, before 9/11.
That, my friends, is a lie. They told him and he didn't do anything. He lied about it to us.
Call Harper's a left wing journal if you will. But do me a favor, right wingers-refute the facts. Go ahead. I double dog dare you.
Scumbags.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
From Keith Olbermann (www.msnbc.com)
"“The Pew Research Center is out with which media was most trusted during the presidential campaign,” O’Reilly stated Monday night. “On the TV side, Fox News wins big… Dead last was MSNBC, which was six percent of Americans trusting them. Obviously they have major problems over there.”
As usual when dealing with the O’Reilly Fact-or-Fiction, he leaves himself so open to fact-checking on so many fronts, that it’s difficult to decide where to thrust the first sword.
Let’s start with the Pew poll. Firstly, it had nothing to do with which media was “most trusted” — it only asked where people got most of their news on the election. And using Fox’s own criteria— they’re right and everybody else ranges from liberal to treasonous— they were cited as the respondents’ primary source by 21%, compared to the NBC/MSNBC/CNBC combination (also 21%), and compared to the combined three broadcast network news departments (29%). The Internet was also cited as a primary source by 21%, suggesting respondents were permitted to give more than one answer. This not only isn’t “Fox News wins big;” using some of the same massaging of numbers O’Reilly is fond of, it’s not even ‘Fox News wins at all.’
Sorry about that “massaging” reference to O’Reilly in there. Poor choice of words."
Say no more.
"“The Pew Research Center is out with which media was most trusted during the presidential campaign,” O’Reilly stated Monday night. “On the TV side, Fox News wins big… Dead last was MSNBC, which was six percent of Americans trusting them. Obviously they have major problems over there.”
As usual when dealing with the O’Reilly Fact-or-Fiction, he leaves himself so open to fact-checking on so many fronts, that it’s difficult to decide where to thrust the first sword.
Let’s start with the Pew poll. Firstly, it had nothing to do with which media was “most trusted” — it only asked where people got most of their news on the election. And using Fox’s own criteria— they’re right and everybody else ranges from liberal to treasonous— they were cited as the respondents’ primary source by 21%, compared to the NBC/MSNBC/CNBC combination (also 21%), and compared to the combined three broadcast network news departments (29%). The Internet was also cited as a primary source by 21%, suggesting respondents were permitted to give more than one answer. This not only isn’t “Fox News wins big;” using some of the same massaging of numbers O’Reilly is fond of, it’s not even ‘Fox News wins at all.’
Sorry about that “massaging” reference to O’Reilly in there. Poor choice of words."
Say no more.
Argh.
George Will says The New York Times is partisan (www.newsweek.com) because it stated that George Bush plans to "replace Social Security" when he has no such plan.
What?
George Bush wants to privatize Social Security and allow recipients to invest the money. What is that if not replacing Social Security? Social Security is guaranteed retirement income. Private investment is not guaranteed. If you change the fundamental nature (the SECURITY part) of Social Security, you are changing it to something else. Yet that’s not replacing it.
Right.
And Iraq just gets worse and worse.
The clip of the Marine shooting the unarmed man is bone chilling. I don’t blame the Marine. I blame the management and the leadership who ask these men to do impossible things with substandard equipment.
Argh.
George Will says The New York Times is partisan (www.newsweek.com) because it stated that George Bush plans to "replace Social Security" when he has no such plan.
What?
George Bush wants to privatize Social Security and allow recipients to invest the money. What is that if not replacing Social Security? Social Security is guaranteed retirement income. Private investment is not guaranteed. If you change the fundamental nature (the SECURITY part) of Social Security, you are changing it to something else. Yet that’s not replacing it.
Right.
And Iraq just gets worse and worse.
The clip of the Marine shooting the unarmed man is bone chilling. I don’t blame the Marine. I blame the management and the leadership who ask these men to do impossible things with substandard equipment.
Argh.
Michelle Malkin is ignorant.
After citing a New York Times article about race based pharmacology:
"So near the end of the editorial, we get this pablum: "race is too superficial and subjective a concept, mostly based on skin color, to match up well with any underlying genetic or physiological differences that may affect how an individual responds to a disease or a drug treatment. "-Either race is a legitimiate scientific classification or it isn't. Sorry, Times, but you can't have it both ways."
THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE says this:
"Medical scientists are using race as a crude surrogate for what they assume are genetic differences yet to be identified.
But there is considerable genetic variability within any racial group, so it is likely that the new pill may fail some black patients, while white patients who could benefit may not get it because they don't fit the racial profile. The ultimate goal, still years or decades away, is to develop medical treatments based on an individual's genes and life experiences, not on membership in some poorly defined racial or ethnic category. Race-based prescribing makes sense only as a temporary measure."
Sorry, Michelle, you should read the entire editorial.
After citing a New York Times article about race based pharmacology:
"So near the end of the editorial, we get this pablum: "race is too superficial and subjective a concept, mostly based on skin color, to match up well with any underlying genetic or physiological differences that may affect how an individual responds to a disease or a drug treatment. "-Either race is a legitimiate scientific classification or it isn't. Sorry, Times, but you can't have it both ways."
THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE says this:
"Medical scientists are using race as a crude surrogate for what they assume are genetic differences yet to be identified.
But there is considerable genetic variability within any racial group, so it is likely that the new pill may fail some black patients, while white patients who could benefit may not get it because they don't fit the racial profile. The ultimate goal, still years or decades away, is to develop medical treatments based on an individual's genes and life experiences, not on membership in some poorly defined racial or ethnic category. Race-based prescribing makes sense only as a temporary measure."
Sorry, Michelle, you should read the entire editorial.
Sigh. Sigh. Sigh. Moan.
The Privateer magazine (www.the-privateer.com) points out that most non
Americans will see Bush's election as American endorsement for his policies.
From a delphi forum(www.delphiforums.com) post:
"If you voted for Bush then I hope you get laid off and wind up homeless. I hope you get drafted, sent to Iraq, and killed. I hope you get a debilitating illness and can't afford to get it treated. I hope your children can't afford to go to college and wind up at Wal-Mart, and you'll have to support them for life. If you voted for Bush, I wish you exactly what you voted for."
Exactly.
Mike
The Privateer magazine (www.the-privateer.com) points out that most non
Americans will see Bush's election as American endorsement for his policies.
From a delphi forum(www.delphiforums.com) post:
"If you voted for Bush then I hope you get laid off and wind up homeless. I hope you get drafted, sent to Iraq, and killed. I hope you get a debilitating illness and can't afford to get it treated. I hope your children can't afford to go to college and wind up at Wal-Mart, and you'll have to support them for life. If you voted for Bush, I wish you exactly what you voted for."
Exactly.
Mike
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
"If you voted for Bush... ...then I hope you get laid off and wind up homeless. I hope you get drafted, sent to Iraq, and killed. I hope you get a debilitating illness and can't afford to get it treated. I hope your children can't afford to go to college and wind up at Wal-Mart, and you'll have to support them for life. If you voted for Bush, I wish you exactly what you voted for.. "
Well put.
From a post on Delphi Forums.
(www.delphiforums.com)
Mike
Well put.
From a post on Delphi Forums.
(www.delphiforums.com)
Mike
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)