Wait, Hillary can't call herself Hillary? WTF?

BULLY BOY PRESS &     CEDRIC'S BIG MIX  & THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS A GREAT MAN -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

IT WAS MARIA MCKEE WHO WISELY OBSERVED:

SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERY LITTLE THING
SOME FOLKS JUST NEVER STOP BITCHING

CASE IN POINT: PEGGY DREXLER.

PEGS -- AND WE CALL HER PEGS INTENTIONALLY AND WITH NOT A HINT OF AFFECTION -- IS BLOWING A GASKET OVER THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE CALLING HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON "HILLARY."

SHE'S EVEN UPSET WITH HILLARY FOR CALLING HERSELF HILLARY.

DID PEGS WANT HILLARY TO CALL HERSELF "HEATHER" OR "DANA" OR "CAITLIN/KATLYN" OR . . .

WAIT, DOES PEGS THINK "HILLARY" IS A MUSLIM NAME?

REMEMBER THOSE FREAKS IN 2008, WHO'D RUN AROUND INSISTING BARACK'S GIVEN MIDDLE NAME COULD NOT BE MENTIONED?

THEY WERE LIKE 40-YEAR-OLD MEN STILL LIVING IN SHAME OVER DADDY NAMING THEM "JUNIOR."

A NAME'S A NAME.

UNLESS YOU'RE PEG.

HEY, DID PEG GET PEGGED?

THAT WOULD EXPLAIN A LOT.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:




On a day of fakery, it's only fitting that one of the all time biggest US fakes attempted to return to prominence.


Who are we talking about?

In April of 2000, Norman Solomon noted this gas bag in a "Media Jeopardy" column:


Although he represented "the left" for six years on CNN's "Crossfire" program, this pundit identifies himself as "a wishy-washy moderate."

Who is Michael Kinsley? 



Yes, we're talking about Michael Kinsley -- Michael "I'm not really a liberal but I played one on TV."

And he did.  On CNN's Crossfire.


He faked his way through a lot of things.  At the end of 1999, Norman Solomon awarded Kinsley an 'honor:'

Take It on Faith Award: Michael Kinsley. In a Time magazine essay, Kinsley -- who works for two of the planet's most powerful communications firms, Microsoft and Time Warner -- sought to persuade readers that the World Trade Organization is a fine institution, despite protests. Kinsley's Dec. 13 piece ended with these words: "But really, the WTO is OK. Do the math. Or take it on faith."

Norman Solomon, in his book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, it was pretty much a requirement that a useless gas bag like Michael be included:

"The president's ability to decide when and where to use America's military power is now absolute," Michael Kinsey observed as the invasion of Iraq ended in (temporary) triumph.  "Congress cannot stop him.  That's not what the Constitution says, and it's not what the War Powers Act says, but that's how it works in practice."


Staying with the Iraq War, the Times of London broke the news on The Downing Street Memo.

And in the US, the response from most news outlets was silence.

Or in MK's case, ridicule.

Bob Somerby (Daily Howler) observed in June 2005:

Maybe now you’ll start to believe the things we’ve said about Michael Kinsley and, by extension, about the fops who are runing our mainstream press corps. In Sunday’s Post (and Los Angeles Times), Kinsley writes an astonishing column about the Downing Street memo. Do a gang of millionaire fops drive our discourse? In case you didn’t know that already, Kinsley sets out to prove it—in spades.
As noted, Kinsley discusses the famous Downing Street memo; in it, a top adviser to Tony Blair seems to say that President Bush had decided on war with Iraq as early as July 2002 (and was “fixing” the facts and the intel accordingly). The memo appeared on May 1 in the Times of London; concerned citizens have been dissecting it from that day to this, even as the Washington press corps struggled to avoid all discussion. (Panel discussions about Kerry’s grades at Yale were far more germane.) But good news! The great Kinsley has finally read the whole memo! Drink in the sheer condescension as he explains why he did:

KINSLEY (6/12/05; pgh 1): After about the 200th e-mail from a stranger demanding that I cease my personal coverup of something called the Downing Street Memo, I decided to read it. It's all over the blogosphere and Air America, the left-wing talk radio network: This is the smoking gun of the Iraq war. It is proof positive that President Bush was determined to invade Iraq the year before he did so. The whole "weapons of mass destruction" concern was phony from the start, and the drama about inspections was just kabuki: going through the motions.

At the Times, Daniel Okrent always seemed to think it was beneath his dignity to receive e-mails from the herd, and Kinsley betrays the same condescension, grumping about the effort required to get him to do his job. Only after receiving demands from hundreds of “strangers” did he do what any citizen would; only then did he bother to read “something called the Downing Street Memo,” the locution he uses to show his disdain for the people who asked him to function. And if you don’t find yourself struck by Kinsley’s bald condescension, we hope you’ll find yourself insulted when you read his account of the memo’s contents. “I don’t buy the fuss,” Kinsley writes. Then he starts to explain why that is:

KINSLEY (2): Although it is flattering to be thought personally responsible for allowing a proven war criminal to remain in office, in the end I don't buy the fuss. Nevertheless, I am enjoying it, as an encouraging sign of the revival of the left. Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes a certain amount of ideological self-confidence. It takes a critical mass of citizens with extreme views and the time and energy to obsess about them. It takes a promotional infrastructure and the widely shared self-discipline to settle on a story line, disseminate it and stick to it.

There you start to have it, readers! If you think the Downing Street memo may show or suggest that Bush was determined to invade Iraq early on, you have “a paranoid theory” and “extreme views”—and “the time and energy to obsess about them.” (This distinguishes you from Kinsley, who didn’t have the time or energy to read the memo until forced.) Indeed, throughout his piece, Kinsley keeps saying that you’re an “extremist” with “extreme views” if you’re bothered by this memo’s contents. Maybe now you’ll believe what we’ve told you about this bizarre, fallen man.


In her book Watchdogs of Democracy: The Waning Washington Press Corps and How It Has Failed the Public, the late Helen Thomas made room for Kinsley:

Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley decided that the classified minutes of the Blair meeting were not a "smoking gun."  He felt it was nor proof that Bush was determined to invade Iraq a year before he gave the green light.  "I don't buy the fuss," Kinsley said. 


FAIR issued an action alert on the topic and noted:

Los Angeles Times editorial page editor Michael Kinsley opted for sarcasm over serious discussion, deriding activists in a June 12 column for sending him emails “demanding that I cease my personal cover-up of something called the Downing Street Memo.” Kinsley kidded that the fuss was a good sign for the Left: “Developing a paranoid theory and promoting it to the very edge of national respectability takes ideological self-confidence.”
What does Kinsley mean by paranoid? Criticizing the Times for not giving the story much attention would be accurate: Prior to the Bush-Blair press conference, a Nexis search shows one story about the Downing Street minutes appeared in the paper nearly two weeks after the story broke (5/12/05), and that columnist Robert Scheer mentioned it a few days later (5/17/05).
In fact, Kinsley’s mocking seemed to serve no purpose, since his fallback position is a familiar media defense: We all knew the Bush administration wanted war, so this simply isn’t news. As Kinsley put it, “Of course, you don’t need a secret memo to know this.” As for “intelligence and facts…being fixed around the policy,” Kinsley eventually acknowledged that “we know now that this was true.”

So, to follow Kinsley’s logic: People who demand more Downing Street coverage have developed a “paranoid theory” that accurately portrays White House decision-making on Iraq. His only quarrel with what he calls a “vast conspiracy” pushing the mainstream media to take the memo more seriously is that the activists think such information is important, and should be brought to the attention of the public, whereas Kinsley–and apparently many others in the mainstream media–doesn’t “buy the fuss.”


We need to note the realities of the hideous Michael Kinsley but we don't have time to include everyone.  He was widely called out.  One person we'll note is David Swanson who probably did more to raise awareness of the Downing Street Memo than anyone else in America.

As part of the continued failure of Vanity Fair, they've added Kinsley to their staff.

Worse, they let him weigh in on Iraq today,


In many ways, "How the Bush Wars Opened the Door for ISIS" is the sort of crap that any idiot who ignored Iraq for the last 12 years could have churned out in their sleep.


Any idiot.

But Michael Kinsley is a special kind of idiot.

Which is how he manages to write:


And yes, the number of Americans in Iraq is relatively trivial, but President Obama has already agreed under pressure to increase troop levels, just long enough, you understand, to help wipe out the latest—and, seemingly, the worst—malefactor, the terrorist group known as ISIS.


Is it trivial to you?

Was it hard to tear away from your porn and type that sentence?



In the November 10, 2014 Iraq snapshot, we dealt with Richard Brunt's lies about US troops being out of Iraq:


Well just because you're letting the precum pool in your pants doesn't mean you need to share your erotic fantasies with the rest of us.

Brunt's so busy jizzing while moaning Barack, he actually writes, "Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq."

Indeed.

For example, he brought these two home last month -- in body bags.








That's Lance Cpl. Sean P. Neal (photo from Facebook).   We noted his death in October 25th snapshot.



That's Cpl Jordan Spears (photo from Marine Corps).  Last month, he was reclassified as the first death in 'Operation Inherent Resolve.'


[. . .]

But this week, DoD issued the following:

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Release No: NR-599-14
December 02, 2014

DoD Identifies Air Force Casualty

  The Department of Defense announced today the death of an Airman who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
Capt. William H. DuBois, 30, of New Castle, Colorado, died Dec. 1 when his F-16 aircraft crashed near a coalition air base in the Middle East. He was assigned to the 77th Fighter Squadron, Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.

For more information media may contact the 20th Fighter Wing Public Affairs Office at 803-895-2019.  

Those three deaths?

They aren't trivial to the service members' family and friends.

They shouldn't be trivial to the country but Micheal Kinsley's a very busy stooge and he clearly has other concerns.




RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"FACT SHEET: U.S.-Iraq Cooperation"
"New Records Reveal Revolving Door for People with ..."
"Haider's in the US, Brett's giddy and wants a slee..."
"tax time"
"Should you pay taxes?"
"Taxes"
"They have to rip every penny from my mouth"
"Harrison nailed it"
"The tax cycle"
"Tax day"
"Tax Day"
"Taxes"
"Ice cream with those taxes"
"The New Republic(an) wants to play"
"THIS JUST IN! NEW REPUBLIC(AN) HAS ANOTHER OF ITS 'BRILLIANT' IDEAS!"