BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL-AID TABLE
CELEBRITY IN CHIEF BARRY O DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO WORK ON THE ECONOMY, RAHM EMANUEL TOLD THESE REPORTERS TODAY, BECAUSE HE'S TOO BUSY FUND RAISING.
AND IT'S WORKING WONDERS, SWEARS RAHM.
"FOR EXAMPLE," RAHM EXPLAINED, "IN 2000, FADED POP STAR, AND PUPPET TO HER CONTROL FREAK HUSBAND, GLORIA ESTEFAN SUPPORTED AND DONATED TO GEORGE W. BUSH. BARRY IS BRINGING ALL THESE CONSERVATIVES INTO THE PARTY AND THEY BRING BIG BUCKS WITH THEM."
AND THE ECONOMY?
"LOOK," SAID AN OBVIOUSLY IRRIATED RAHM, "IF PEOPLE WILL BE PATIENT AND VOTE BARRY INTO OFFICE FOR FOUR MORE YEARS, I PROMISE YOU THAT, DECEMBER 2016, HE'LL SPEND A MINUTE OR TWO PONDERING THE LOUSY ECONOMY."
FROM THE TCI WIRE:
Monday WikiLeaks released US military video of an assault in Iraq. Appearing on ABC's This Week yesterday, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates offered his thoughts on the July 12, 2007 assault in Baghdad in which 12 Iraqis were killed by US forces, "But by the same token, I think-think is should not have any lasting consequences." Isaiah illustrated that 'lovely thought' last night in "No Lasting Consequences?" and today the Defense Dept rushes to do spin control creating a quote ("Painful to Watch") that, in fact, Gates did not utter in his interview but someone thought it was just the headline for John J. Kruzel's Defense Dept propaganda ("Gates Calls Air Strike Video 'Painful to Watch'") released by the Defense Dept's "American Forces Press Service. Gates is an idiot -- one apparently still mourning the recent death of his former lover (and wasn't it cute the way the press averted their eyes on that) -- because expressing any sympathy for the dead -- killed by US service members -- would have gone a long way in mitigating the ill will that is brewing. At one point during the 2007 attack, a van pulls up -- containing two children -- and attempts to rescue those who have been shot. The van is then targeted by the US military. Today on Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez introduced video noting that "earlier this month, journalists from the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service, who were part of the investigative team that released the US military video on WikiLeaks, visited the family of Saleh Mutashar, the driver of the van and the father of the two children. They showed his family the recently released video footage of the attack on the van that led to his death, and then spoke to his son Sajad, his nephew Anwar and his widow Alham Abdelhussain."
AHLAM ABDELHUSSAIN: [translated] My husband did nothing wrong. He saved a wounded person and had his children with him in the car. How do I feel? What can I say? Why was he shot with his children in the car? They did nothing wrong. He was helping a journalist. What was his crime? What was the crime of our children who are left with no father and no support?
ANWAR: [translated] He was carrying wounded people during the American attacks. He was trying to help. They believe that someone who was carrying a gun will take his children along with him? Unbelievable. What can we do? God take revenge from the Americans. They destroyed us and destroyed our nations. What is the future of those children? They are orphans.
SAJAD MUTASHAR: [translated] I want to get our rights from the Americans who harmed us.
And for the record, it's now four days since Rick Rowley made an 'unusual' claim on Democracy Now! You'll note that neither he nor Amy Goodman has rushed to back that claim up. As we said in real time, if he had video of such a thing, he would have shown it. The refusal in the time since to show the video makes his dubious claims even more so. Those who play fast and loose with the truth can make many a pleasing claim but no one is helped by falsehoods or the repeating of them. Rowley shaves corners and facts repeatedly. It's a pattern with him. He made a ridiculous claim last week that Goodman allowed to be broadcast without challenge. A week later, no proof has been supplied. You'll also notice that David Enders -- on that trip to Iraq with Rowley -- has not stepped forward to back Rowley's claim up. When the left refuses to obey by any standards, we do not help ourselves. Rowley's pleasing claim was, no doubt, repeated by many and it, no doubt, stoked hatred. Rowley is very good at doing the latter. He's just not very good at supplying proof of his claims.
Fast and loose with the facts? Because they don't want to kiss goodbye 'good' illegal wars, Timothy Lynch and Nicolas Bouchet assembled a bunch of false claims for the Guardian -- claims Lynch knows would turn him into a laughingstock (okay, a bigger one) if he made them in this country so better he present them to British audiences apparently. Attacking Simon Jenkins' Guardian column from last week which noted that the US effort to promote 'democracy' in Iraq was done via thuggery, Lynch and Bouchet lie through their teeth and insist that, "The United States went to war in these countries because it believed, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers posed a serious national security threat. The short-term solution was to topple the Taliban and Saddm. Neither war was fought to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into Western-style democracies." On the first claim:
The United States went to war in these countries because it believed, rightly or wrongly, that their rulers posed a serious national security threat.
It's a shame lightening can't fall from the sky and strike dead liars who resort to revisonary history. The US did not believe that either the Taliban or Afghanistan posed a national security threat -- serious or otherwise. The proof of that is in the offer not to bomb the country that was made following September 11th. The US government requested that Osama bin Laden be turned over -- well, ordered. If he wasn't turned over, the US administration stated they would bomb the country. If turning over bin Laden would mean no bombing, then you can't claim that Afghanistan or the Taliban was a US security threat. For those who have forgotten (many have), the Taliban (this isn't an endorsement of the Taliban) responded by asking for proof of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the attacks. The US government maintained they had proof, the Taliban asked to see it before doing an extradition. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, spoke for the administration when he insisted that proof would be supplied . . . after bin Laden was handed over.
Without proof, Afghanistan refused to extradite the wealthiest citizen their country had (bin Laden is not from Afghanistan, he's from Saudi Arabia). At which point, the US bombed. This does not demonstrate that Afghanistan or the Taliban was a security threat. Also worthy of note is that before George W. Bush left office, the FBI would remove bin Laden from their ten most wanted list and, when the press noted, explain that they had no proof connecting him to the 9-11 attacks. Apparently Colin Powell didn't wish to share the proof with the FBI either?
Iraq? Not a security threat. There is no way you can make that claim with a straight face. Some will argue, "Easy to say now! But back then --" To which the reply, should be, "Isn't it past your bedtime?"
RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"When CATO attacks and more"
"Playing kick the can with PTSD"
Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "No Lasting Consequences"
"And the war drags on . . ."
"Pensacola, we have a problem"
"Don't Think, Don't Disagree"
"The unthinking sexism of TGW"
Truest statement of the week
Truest statement of the week II
A note to our readers
Editorial: Who moved, who stayed?
TV: The Woman Who Loathed Women
Eleanor gets egg on her face
Fear of Cooties Ruins Tom Harkin's Life
Most embarrassing moment
"THIS JUST IN! PREZ PUNK ASS!"
"Presidential Punk Ass"