« Edwards Stumbles On The Net | Main | The Stature Gap »

Biased Incompetence

Jon Ham points out some pretty egregious examples of media bias, or media incompetence. Whichever you choose to believe it is, it isn't good. I tend to believe it is biased incompetence.


Comments (72)

Unfreakinbelievable.<... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Unfreakinbelievable.

Wait, I take that back. Very believable. And the democrat party doesn't even have to pay these liars. They lie for them willingly.

The one amazing thing is that with all the outrageous lies & bias by the MSM, the GOP still manages to win most of the time. If the MSM was fair and balanced, I'd venture to say the democrat party would be history altogether.

Thank God most Americans are still smarter than the liberal MSM thinks they are.

That was one breathless rea... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

That was one breathless read at the John Locke(sic) Foundation, perhaps to overshadow (by "mind-boggled" OUTRAGE) the fact that the substance remains unchanged. These war wienies being dissected now, were PEGGED almost immediately! http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe080703.html As for the Inspector General: he was testifying on C-SPAN today. There was NO good news for Fox to report. OBVIOUSLY! (I'm sure they could have pushed Anna Nicole's fat cadaver aside if there were!)

Umm, more likely, everyone ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Umm, more likely, everyone quoted from the same Levin report, which apparently didn't adequately attribute the quotes. Seems a more likely explanation than COLLUSION!

Re-reading my own link, I n... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Re-reading my own link, I note Elizabeth Cheney "in the loop" for our immoral war. Now where did I put my Turkey Baster Jokes book?

Jo,The "outrageous... (Below threshold)
John:

Jo,

The "outrageous lie" that you refer to was an incorrectly attributed quote that said the Feith report was of "dubious quality or reliability.", supposidly made by Acting Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble.

The actual summary by Gimble stated that the Feith report contained "alternative intelligence assessments on Iraq and Al Qaida relations" that were "inconsistent" with the intelligence community's consensus view in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq." Furthermore Gimble stated that the actions taken by Feith with the authorization of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were legal but "the actions, in our opinion, were inappropriate."

One of the work products from Feith and his team was a briefing entitled "Iraq and al-Qaeda: Making the Case". The CIA screened the briefing when it was ready, and disagreed with 50% of the report, and agreed or only partialy agreed with the remainder.

This was one of the big justifications for going into Iraq, and was presented to the American people as fact.

Basicaly, what happened is the Administration directed their political officer to create briefings supporting the Administrations point of view, which was then presented back to that Administration and then presented to the American people as fact.

No "Outrageous Lies" in the MSM reporting however. Quote got misattributed, but the Feith reports were certainly of dubious quality or reliability. We went to war and we're blowing 500 billion dollars over this.

Should you not be more concerned about that?

John, were you a fly on th... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

John, were you a fly on the wall. None of the investigations have turned up anything close to your lies. A lying congressman twisted the facts on purpose and the inept media jumper the shark and published his lies as fact. Now they are publishing corrections and some of the facts. Of course the original story was in big block letters and the correction will require bi-focals to read. Surely someone will loan you a pair.

I've always wondered why anyone would walk into a room full of people and open fire with several weapons for what seemed like nothing. Now I know, they were dealing with lying left wing politician (aka dhimmi communist) bast***s and killing them was the only way to get rid of them. Just like a hero in war, they made the sacrafice and served a prison sentence.

Well, ScrapIron, you are cl... (Below threshold)
John:

Well, ScrapIron, you are clearly off your meds today.

The correction was that Gimble did not say the Feith report was of dubious quality or reliability. Gimble said that the report was inconsistent with the intelligence community's consensus and the administration policy decisions that produced that report were inappropriate.

Oooooh, boy. That really changes everything, doesn't it?

The investigation by Defense Department Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble turned up exactly what I state above. You can read about it pretty much anywhere, or you can follow this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17077437/

PS: Don't shoot people. It's not nice.

The Left, of course, would ... (Below threshold)

The Left, of course, would prefer to have relied solely upon the CIA analysts' views, which included the conclusion that Saddam's WMDs were a "slam dunk."

The same folks who missed: Castro's embrace of communism instead of democracy, the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the Tet offensive in Vietnam, the Indian bomb, the Iranian Revolution, the Pakistani bomb, the Israeli bomb, the South African bomb, the Libyan bomb program, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Empire, the North Korean bomb, etc., & etc.

Yes, God forbid any alternative look at their analysis!

Yes, God forbid any alte... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yes, God forbid any alternative look at their analysis!

An alternative look that is based on what? The first look was based on an analysis of the facts, analyzed by the vast and myriad intelligence resources of the United States. Just who exactly would you say is qualified, and what resources should be used, to come up with an "alternative look"?

Actually, you may have a point. I used to think it appropriate that mortgage companies would base approval decisions on an analysis of one's employment, salary, tax returns, and credit history. But now I think they should discard that information and bring in the president of the mortgage company to execute the "alternative look" approach.

The Left, of course, wou... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The Left, of course, would prefer to have relied solely upon the CIA analysts' views,

Yes, absolutely. Because the CIA's analysis did not conclude that Saddam had WMD.

which included the conclusion that Saddam's WMDs were a "slam dunk."

Nope. It wasn't the CIA analysts who came to that conclusion. That was just Tenet misrepresenting his own agency's findings, likely an effort to give Bush what he asked for.

By the way, given that you brought Castro and Vietnam into the thread, be prepared to be attacked for going off-topic. They're really cracking down on that around here.

...the GOP still manages... (Below threshold)

...the GOP still manages to win most of the time.

Few too many shots tonight Jo? Besides losing the popular vote in 3 of the last 4 presidential elections this is the rest of the Republicans sorry record:

Governorships
Dem 28 56%
Rep 22 44%


State Legislatures Controlled
Dem 56 57%
Rep 40 41%


State Legislature Seats
Dem 3964 54.5%
Rep 3307 45.5%


US House Seats
Dem 230 54%
Rep 196 46%


Senate Total Votes
Dem 32.8mil 55%
Rep 25.4mil 42%


Contested US Senate Seats in 2006
Dem 24 72%
Rep 9 28%


Get a grip on reality Jo. Your side is losing, not winning. Republicans lose MOST of the time.

Larkin, Explain how dem... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Larkin, Explain how democrats being in the complete MINORITY for the last 6 years straight translates to Republicans losing most of the time?

Then maybe you can explain why democrats engage in election fraud two years before an election?

Rob, you should worry about... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Rob, you should worry about where the country is going, instead of where it has been...On all the important issues: Iraq, global warming, transparency in government, science, and health care, the country is going one way and the the Republican Imperial Vice-Presidency, behind Bush is going the other.

Steve, are you reading righ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Steve, are you reading right out of your lefty handbook or do you quote it from memory? Very boring. Something I have never read before. Not.
ww

LorieThis posting ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Lorie

This posting by Jon Ham via you Lorie is a fine example of the extremist RWB's trying to get out in front of the full impact of the DoD's IG report reflecting that Feith's OSP was determinedly developing counter-evidence to deliberately support what Cheney wanted: a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida, whether there was one or not. And unlike the lame rightwingnut claim that everyone including Clinton, various foreign nations, the Congres, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and even Abraham Lincoln, not to mention Mother Goose and the BVM, all believed that Saddam had WMD, it was essentially the stand-alone OSP making the manufactured assessment that there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida.

All the uproar over some misattributed quotes that actually came from Levin do not diminish the significance of what the IG report says in the least.

One can only wonder what the full classified report shows.

One can be fairly certain that the full classified report has been classified, not to prevent the enemy from seeing vital intelligence, but to keep the American people from seeing what Bush & Cheney did to maneuver this country into war under the falsest of pretenses.

There is already enough info out in the public realm that there should be full public Congressional investigations into exactly what was done in the run-up to Bush's disastrous war
of choice.

Sorry Lorie, but all the screeching from your extremist right wingnuts is not going to distract this nation much longer.

Brian:By the wa... (Below threshold)
astigafa:

Brian:

By the way, given that you brought Castro and Vietnam into the thread, be prepared to be attacked for going off-topic. They're really cracking down on that around here.

That only applies to us "trolls" (read: people who disagree with the flat-earth perspectives expressed by wizbang regulars and sympathizers.) Everybody else can do as they please -- which is consistent with neocon values.

Or, in other words, aRepuke... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Or, in other words, aRepukelican doesn't mind that the original Washington Post article was faked - he just cares that it said what he wanted to read.

OhioVoterThe origi... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

OhioVoter

The original WaPo article was no more faked than the Washington Chymes articles about Pelosi's planes.

BTW your reference to my alleged misogyny on the other thread simply overlooks the old SNL Chevy Chase/Jane Curtin routine where Chase always retorted to Jane Curtin with. "Jane, you ignorant slut..."

In this case, Jo is ignorant, abominably so. As to her morals, I make no assumptions.

As for the nuances in the I... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

As for the nuances in the Inspector General's report that the press incorrectly attributed,(that it is worthy of a reprimand) However, the Inspector General wrote: Feith's "alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al-Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the intelligence community, to senior decision-makers." This to the senior decision maker(Bush) who had peresumably been briefed on Feith's report, and who declared in December 2002" that in

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive"..

When you can't distinguish between Al Queda and Saddam, or between Shiites and Sunnis (as Bush couldn't then) what will be the consequences of such ignorance when you invade and occupy that country? Exactly what were seeing now, where there are about 4 or 5 insoluble conflicts going on simultaneously. On the bar of consequence, incompetence and bias, Lorie holds the press with their deadlines to meet, to a much higher standard than she does to our our president, for whom ignorance ( of the enemy) was bliss and sacred, and for whom, with Cheney, the Feith report would have been red meat.


I know exactly where the ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

I know exactly where the Country is going if evil is allowed to prevail, a place we have already been , back to the hell and corruption of another criminal democrat President.

"On all the important issues: Iraq, global warming, transparency in government, science, and health care,"

Iraq? real issue , Democrats can't deal with

Global Warming? Ha! A Farce pushed by Democrats to take focus off real issues , issues Democrats are too incompetant and inexperienced to deal with.

Transparency in Government? Only when democrats are in the Minority do they aid and abbet the enemy and work together to undermine Our President and his Party in a time of war to take back control at the same time. Spare me, the criminals in the democrat party still remain don't they? Ya , Not only do they get re-elected , many get a promotion.

Science? What about it? Oh you mean the attempted use of science to deceive the people?

Health Care? You mean Communism right? Big Government? Give us your vote and we'll give you Health Care(shitty) Social Security(ponzi scheme)? no thanks.

Democrats care about health care as much as they care about our Soldiers. Which means they don't , period. Democrats are criminal frauds who only care about themselves. The fact that they continue to try and push their failed and Rejected HilaryCare down our throats is proof positive they give a shit about our health.


The farce that is "Global Warming" being the greatest threat we face today is a load of crap. A smoke screen to divert attention away from massive democrat failures to confront and fix Social Security and entitlement reform. "PAID VOTES"

Democrats are running out of things that they can pretend to care about. They must rely on their Media to work 24/7 and tell blatant lies to get them back in Power. Not to mention working in tandem with our enemy. Our enemies have openly admitted helping the Democrats win and still less honest that our enemy is the democrat party.

aRepukelican,Or, i... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

aRepukelican,

Or, in other words, you are fine with a faked article if it says what you want to hear.

The original Washington Post article stated that the quotes came from the IG's report. They did not, BUT you have no problem with that and don't consider it "faked".

Your response does nothing but confirm my original statement.

As to the old SNL skit, I am well familiar with it in its original form. It's brilliance is in the unexpected use of the term.

However, since you consistently refer to women who have the temerity to disagree with you as harlots, etc, the your reference to Jo as a "slut" was hardly unexpected. It is simply 'business as usual" for you.

"or between Shiites and ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"or between Shiites and Sunnis (as Bush couldn't then) what will be the consequences of such ignorance when you invade and occupy that country? Exactly what were seeing now, where there are about 4 or 5 insoluble conflicts going on simultaneously."

Are you going to try and pass these shameless lies as opinion?

Why don't you give a name to your 4-5 alledged insoluble conflicts.

"The inspector general's re... (Below threshold)
groucho:

"The inspector general's report further states that Feith's briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

Wrongly sourced quotes do nothing to diminish the conclusions reached by the IG. Throw up all the smoke you want, but this report, along with the Libby trial revelations about the lengths to which Cheney et al, went to in their attempt to discredit and damage Wilson and Plame shown increasingly clear picture of the pre-invasion planning. The White Hose was desperate to misrepresent the accuracy of intel. They knew damn well much of it was BS and were in crisis mode to prevent anyone from getting a look behind the curtain at the people pulling the strings.

Groucho, you and the res... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Groucho, you and the rest of Jerry's kids should really STFU. You are forever on the record as being liars and frauds and it's all in writing on the WEB.
You losers never tire of reinventing your lies to cover previous lies etc.

"went to in their attempt to discredit and damage Wilson and Plame?

You retarded shit for brain, what part of "WILSON IS A TWICE PROVEN LIAR" don't you understand?

You and your lying sleeper cell buddies should have your tongues cut off the same way they cut off the hand of a thief in Saudi Arabia. I realize you all are getting very impatient and antsy not having heard or seen your leader Osama for some years. You have made so much progress learning the english language while waiting for your cell to activated. That must explain why you come here to unleash your hit and run verbal displays of utter stupidity with your pathetic little circle jerk bombs to pester the adults at this sight.

I don't think your going to hear from the tall bearded stick man so you should get a life or blow yourselves up already.

Bwahahahahahahahah ...... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Bwahahahahahahahah ...

The libbies are here en masse today because they HATE it when they hear the media has done their bidding for them and they have been BUSTED.

Face it. You guys need the big ole media helping out like a parent who does his child's homework for him. Yet with all that help, they STILL whine about "unfairness" 24/7.

Like I said before, Dear God, please give back the liberal's male genitalia. I've never seen such (insert Amanda-the-blogger type language here).....

Good times, good times.

Trip down memory lane:... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Trip down memory lane:

"Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. . . . They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them . . . that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

Evan Thomas of Newsweek
Summer 2004

The only humorous part of that statement was when he said "I think" about the MSM wanting Kerry to win. Ya Think??? bwhahahahah..

Anyway, point is, Bush still won by over 3 million votes and we kept the House & Senate.

But keep on calling up daddy (MSM) to do your heavy lifting. Lord knows you need help.

Good times, good times.

"John" what school was it y... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"John" what school was it you went to? Or did you "forget" to tell us? Which "media" outlet was it you worked for"
"pukeface" knows why he is called PUKEFACE.

From the New York Times :</... (Below threshold)
Actual:

From the New York Times :


THE PUBLIC EDITOR
Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT

Published: July 25, 2004


Of course it is.
...
Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
...

Wrongly sourced quotes d... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Wrongly sourced quotes do nothing to diminish the conclusions reached by the IG. Throw up all the smoke you want, but this report, along with the Libby trial revelations about the lengths to which Cheney et al, went to in their attempt to discredit and damage Wilson and Plame shown increasingly clear picture of the pre-invasion planning. The White Hose was desperate to misrepresent the accuracy of intel. They knew damn well much of it was BS and were in crisis mode to prevent anyone from getting a look behind the curtain at the people pulling the strings.

Have you followed the Libby trial AT ALL?

Fitz' case...well, it's not going well. Already had one charge dismissed and the prosecution was hardly impressive in their presentation.
-=Mike

The original Washington ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The original Washington Post article stated that the quotes came from the IG's report. They did not, BUT you have no problem with that and don't consider it "faked".

A quote that actually existed but was misattributed, and then later corrected, is "faked"? Man, you sure are desperate.

The libbies are here en masse today because they HATE it when they hear the media has done their bidding for them and they have been BUSTED.

Actually, the word you're looking for is "vindicated". I LOVE the media for reporting on the IG report! It leaves the right nowhere to go, except to whine, "yes, we did misrepresent the facts, but there was no law against doing that!"

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Exactly what were seeing... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Exactly what were seeing now, where there are about 4 or 5 insoluble conflicts going on simultaneously."

"Are you going to try and pass these shameless lies as opinion?

Why don't you give a name to your 4-5 alledged insoluble conflicts."

Posted by: Rob LA Ca. at February 10, 2007 10:38 AM

Okay Rob..I will take you up.

"What I have said in my testimony is that I think that the words "civil war" oversimplify a very complex situation in Iraq. I believe that there are essentially four wars going on in Iraq.
One is Shi'a on Shi'a, principally in the south; the second is sectarian conflict, principally in Baghdad, but not solely; third is the insurgency; and fourth is al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is attacking, at times, all of those targets." Before you question the bias of this authority you might look at at the source..

Libs need to ask themselves... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Libs need to ask themselves: If the media isn't biased towards the left, why do you all defend them so much?

LOL.

I just love to watch the libs get their panties (and I include liberal men when I say panties) in a wad because they know full well the media is their sugar daddy, and they still struggle to win elections.

Yeeeeeehaw.

A quote that actually ex... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

A quote that actually existed but was misattributed, and then later corrected, is "faked"? Man, you sure are desperate.

Another person voting for "fake" information.

Brian, if the point of your argument is "the IG said ..." and the IG DIDN'T say it what your articles claims that he/she did, your article is fake.

What I don't understand is this ... Anyone who TRULY cares about information being correct and accurate should disclaim the WashPost article for being poorly sourced and written. If someone does that, then they have demonstrated that they are truly concerned about accuracy REGARDLESS of who is telling the story.

However, if you defend all the inaccuracies in the press as "fake but true", then you aren't concerned about accuracy - you are concerned about winning a partisian contest.

Therefore the "OTHER" person lied (not was mistaken, but LIED) while those on your side of the aisle were simply "guilable". (Not the greatest campaign slogan, BTW, - "Vote for me - I was too stupid to know better.') And, you don't care how much the truth has to be stretched to get your viewpoint heard.

Ohiovoter, My hat t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Ohiovoter,
My hat to you for your logic and analysis. But the liberals like Brian, aRep-communist agent, Lee, etc... are not concerned about honesty or accuracy. Otherwise, they wouldn't have participated, enabled, and promoted a known liar like Wilson and his wife. The liberals rewarded their liars. Their mode of operation is "fake but accurate".
They are desperately trying to cover up the own dishonesty. They are projecting their mode of operation on others.
Just look at the evidence, the liberals here are either ignorant/dumb or simply dishonest. Wilson can lie according to liberals, but Cheney and Co. cannot counter their lies. This is the common tactic the liberals have used to smear the US and anyone who are willing to fight the enemies of America. The liberals will ignore or even excuse the mass murderers or the terrorists who cut off people 's heads in cold blood. When the US military responded to these cold blooded killers, the liberals will find every mistake (using the perfection fallacy) to smear them.

Bush and Cheney simply repeated what Clinton adm and the Dem leaders have repeated said about Saddam, WMD, and the threat of terrorism. aRep may be too dumb to know the facts and history. Brian is simply too dishonest to engage in an honest debate. He is simply here to lie and spin for the liberals. However, we need to acknowledge that Bush did make one big mistake in this war: he didn't prepare for the propaganda the Dems/liberals is willing to wage to attack him for partisan gain. They stoop so low that they are willing to do that even it will aid the enemies. That 's why liberal behaviors in general are so despicable.

About the liberal press, they are nothing but a leftist propaganda organization. I don't expect truth from them in any case. I expect lies, distortion, cover-up etc... I do have very low expectation for the press and liberals in general now. They haven't disappointed me yet.

Brian, if the point of y... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, if the point of your argument is "the IG said ..." and the IG DIDN'T say it what your articles claims that he/she did, your article is fake.

No, the article was mistaken. Every newspaper runs "corrections". Do you perceive every article that had a single correction as then being completely invalidated as "fake"? If an article about a person includes the wrong photo of that person (later corrected), then that makes the content of the article "fake"?

You are being disingenuous (and "fake") if you're going to argue that a newspaper attributing a quote to the wrong person somehow completely invalidates the underlying report the article was based on.

But if you insist on dismissing Levin's quote since it was misattributed, go right ahead. You can't dismiss the rest of the report, which is far more harsh.

No, the article was mist... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

No, the article was mistaken.

Mistaken is "The picture on the left is Eric D. Smith, not Eric C. Smith"

Not "Well, that entire citation we made of the report was not accurate at any point". You'd think with the "layers" of fact-checkers, somebody would have noticed a 2 yr old release from Sen. Levin was not, in fact, a newly released study.

You'd think so.

Do you perceive every article that had a single correction as then being completely invalidated as "fake"?

It wasn't a single correction. It was "EVERYTHING WE CITED WAS FALSE".

You are being disingenuous (and "fake") if you're going to argue that a newspaper attributing a quote to the wrong person somehow completely invalidates the underlying report the article was based on.

Since the REPORT DOESN'T REMOTELY SAY IT, it couldn't possibly be MORE invalidated unless it used forged memos that you also probably thought didn't invalidate a story.

But if you insist on dismissing Levin's quote since it was misattributed, go right ahead. You can't dismiss the rest of the report, which is far more harsh.

The report is nowhere near that harsh. Hate to break it to you. You're hanging your hat on a report that is blatantly false.

But, hey, you think the mosques in Iraq were destroyed too in spite of pictures of them still standing and still being used.
-=Mike
...Reality-based community, eh?

Libs need to ask themsel... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Libs need to ask themselves: If the media isn't biased towards the left, why do you all defend them so much?

Ouch!

Brian, you need to paddle f... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Brian, you need to paddle faster. Your attempts to keep this particular story afloat is failing.

Since Mike already debunked your argument (Thanks, Mike!), I will leave you to your efforts.

What none of the Wizfools h... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

What none of the Wizfools here, Jo, the most absurd of all, cannot refute from the IG report is that it demonstrates that Feith & company were cooking the intelligence, specifically the Saddam=al-Qaida claim, all other int5elligence to the contrary.

This is an excellent pointer to Bush lied, Americans died.

Slime the WaPo all you want, what the IG Report says is not FAKE. None of you slobbering Pavlovian puppies can deny that the OSP was funneling "fake" intelligence to a Chimp-in-chief who already was hell bent for war and looking for any lie, misrepresentation, fake intelligence to sell this war to a nation.

That is a strong indication that this C-i-C is the most dishonest & irresponsible president in the history of the US.

I challenge any of the Wizpuppies to prove that Feith was funneling valid intelligence to the the Great Decider.

You Wizfools are a sorry lot because, no matter what this president did to this country, you are going to stand up & cheer. As I read these asinine comments by the likes of Jo, RobLA Ca, Mike SC, OhioVoter, Love AmeriKa Enemagrunt and others, I can just about hear the roar of the crowds from Nürnberg stadium, many decades ago.

You Wizfools are a sorry... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You Wizfools are a sorry lot because, no matter what this president did to this country, you are going to stand up & cheer. As I read these asinine comments by the likes of Jo, RobLA Ca, Mike SC, OhioVoter, Love AmeriKa Enemagrunt and others, I can just about hear the roar of the crowds from Nürnberg stadium, many decades ago.

You had fun at that rally, didn't you?

Bush sought other intel analysis outside of the CIA, which is hardly inexcusable.
-=Mike
...You don't have a case, Puke. You embarrass yourself trying...

aRepukelican, what a breakt... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

aRepukelican, what a breakthrough!

Instead of referring to all women who have the temerity to disagree with you as harlots or sluts or something similiar, you have now progressed to calling them Nazis. LOL!

Of course, you know the rule of the Internet. When you get desperate enough to call people who dare to disagree with you Nazis, you know that you have lost the argument.

Your defense of the Washington Post article, of course, proves that you really AREN'T concerned about the accuracy of the information - you are concerned about the partisian spin. It said what you wanted it to say so you don't care that a day later the Washington Post had to admit the HUGE factual error that it made in its original article.

The WashPo article is like a bad court case. When the prosecution screws up that badly (as the authors of the WashPo article did), the credibility is shot for good. That is the cost of valueing 'hit pieces' above good journalism.

By the way, prove Bush LIED - and simply wasn't mistaken as was so many other politicians on both sides of the aisle and around the world were.

OhioVoterThe point... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

OhioVoter

The point is not the accuracy of the WaPo.

Far more important than that is the story of the IG Report and what it reflects.

The fact that you or Mike SC or any of the other Wizfools ignore this 20 megaton elephant in the room reflects that there is essentially no limit to your tolerance for corrupt and lying government, or for that matter, a dictatorial government.

Try as hard as you want, none of you has the least mitigating excuse for what that report indicates; namely that the OSP facillitated the presentation of false intelligence in addition to tthe Libby trial reflecting the use of false intelligence about yellowcake.

This is intolerable and unacceptable in any government of the people.

Since you Wizpuppies will lap & yelp at the feet of this administration it shows you don't give a damn about what kind of a government you have.

As for what I said above, if fascism is to your taste, you're already well on the way.

The point is not the acc... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

The point is not the accuracy of the WaPo.

aRepukelican, I "get" that you do not care if the Washington Post reports the truth or not. What I want to know is "why" you don't care that the report was false.

You claim that the truth is important - but don't care about misreporting when it benefits your already established POV. That simply makes no sense.

The fact that you or Mike SC or any of the other Wizfools ignore this 20 megaton elephant in the room reflects that there is essentially no limit to your tolerance for corrupt and lying government, or for that matter, a dictatorial government.

First, your post shows an appalling lack of knowledge about American History, but I don't have the time it would take to bring you up to speed on THAT.

I asked you to prove that he LIED versus simply was mistaken. You responded with a personal attack on everyone who does not share your POV.

If it is so apparent that it was a lie, why can't you prove it with facts?

This is intolerable and unacceptable in any government of the people.

Since you Wizpuppies will lap & yelp at the feet of this administration it shows you don't give a damn about what kind of a government you have.

As so often is the case with blatant partisians as yourself, you are making an assumption about my beliefs that is absolutely untrue.

I am appalled by the lack of talent and intellect of our highest elected officials in this country. The Democrats had 4 years to find a candidate to who could beat George Bush and the best they could come up with was John Kerry - a do-nothing Senator who apparently - based on the campaign he ran - still believes it is 1972.

Now, we have a whole new set of challengers who are clearly running against the Bush legacy - despite the fact he cannot be a candidate in 2008.

The level of ignorance and corruption in BOTH parties is horrendous. It unfortunately won't improve until rabid partisians, such as yourself, stop whitewashing all of their own parties corruption and blaming everything on the opposition.

As for what I said above, if fascism is to your taste, you're already well on the way.

You'll have to forgive me, Puke. (You picked the name - I'm tired of writing the whole thing out.) Having actually lived in a nation under one of the 20th centuries worst dictators, I do not get excited by uninformed making claims such as this one.

Travel and see the world a little.

Ka Ching! Excellent and in... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Ka Ching! Excellent and informed rebuttals Ohio, Mike, etc.

Game, set, match to conservatives on this thread.

Next.

Try as hard as you want,... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Try as hard as you want, none of you has the least mitigating excuse for what that report indicates; namely that the OSP facillitated the presentation of false intelligence in addition to tthe Libby trial reflecting the use of false intelligence about yellowcake.

The only reasonable evidence out there that Saddam didn't try to purchase yellowcake is that Wilson reported that he did. Since Wilson is an accomplished liar, it is the ONLY thing bringing into doubt.
-=Mike

And a clip from an interest... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

And a clip from an interesting ABC News Piece in 2000 (hint: BEFORE Bush).

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016745.php
-=Mike

Mike SCHow strange... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike SC

How strange, what w/ this 2000 ABC report, that the 9/11 Commission still found no credible link between Saddam & al-Qaida.

I wonder why.

They actually found no ties... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

They actually found no ties between Saddam and 9/11 --- but facts have never slowed you down.
-=Mike

Mike SC"but fac... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike SC

"but facts have never slowed you down."

Nor you either, apparently.

This report does not further whatever kind of "non-distinction" that you think you are making.

Looks like the LA Times is ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Looks like the LA Times is creating fake journalism out of whole cloth?

Read & weep Wizsycophants.

Poor wittle "pukeface". No ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Poor wittle "pukeface". No one seems to understand him. Why does anyone not understand that what he says is gospel covered in #$^((%#!%*_+_+(&%R%& and then he explains it with his links from ................. Bless his wittle heart.

The fundamental point is th... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

The fundamental point is that Bush and the dems saw the same intelligence. What Bush said about Saddam, WMD, and terrorism was no different from what Clinton and the dems said during the 1990s. Rockefeller even said the same thing with stronger wordings than Bush's. The dems are simply dishonest and only interested in attacking/slandering no matter what. The fact that they were willing to lie in Rathergate, Wilsongate etc... shows us these liberals have no interest in the truth. It is simply a propaganda word to use for them.

If the liberals are willing to say that Clinton and Dems were lying in the 1990s, then I can take them a little more seriously. In essense, the liberals ask Bush to treat Clinton and all the dems as liars before the Iraq war. Probably, Bush should have.

Hey jhow66I screwe... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hey jhow66

I screwed up w/ the link. Try this for unbiased reporting.

As above, read & weep. The IG Report reflects that Feith & OSP was cooking up a steaming serving of the crap that you have been heartily wolfing down for the past 5 years.

Communist-agent Puke,... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Communist-agent Puke,
Don't you know the LA Times have been caught red-handed lying just as the NYT and CBS?
CLinton and the dems have been lying about Iraq intelligence all through out the 1990s. The fact that the LA Times didn't mention this as a context shows that at the very least they are biased or worse intentionally distorting/lying.
This is simply another example in the long list of liberal dishonesty.

And the dishonesty of the l... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And the dishonesty of the liberals is this: intelligence as anything else is not a perfect business, esp after the gutting of the human intelligence by liberals like Carter. The liberals have been using this imperfection to slander Bush and the US. That 's why i say the behavior of liberals is so despicable in this respect. People like Arep are going to the mat for a known liar like Wilson even today.

Reasonable and decent people would have behaved much better than this.

Not "Well, that entire c... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Not "Well, that entire citation we made of the report was not accurate at any point".

That's not what happened. The citation was accurate. The source was misattributed.

It wasn't a single correction. It was "EVERYTHING WE CITED WAS FALSE".

You're lying again. It was "EVERYTHING WE CITED WAS TRUE, JUST MISATTRIBUTED".

Since the REPORT DOESN'T REMOTELY SAY IT

Nope, but Levin said it. That it was said is confirmed true. It was just misattributed.

The report is nowhere near that harsh.

If you are claiming that the Pentagon policy chief taking "inappropriate" action in advancing conclusions "not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies" is "not harsh", then you're just demonstrating the kind of dishonest behavior the right condones, and even expects.

Hate to break it to you. You're hanging your hat on a report that is blatantly false.

Ah, so now the Inspector General's office is lying? Please cite your source. Or is your claim just completely fake?

aRepukelican, I "get" th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

aRepukelican, I "get" that you do not care if the Washington Post reports the truth or not. What I want to know is "why" you don't care that the report was false.

Here's why. Let's say the WaPo report was complete fabrication. It was fantasy. It was a fairy tale. Let's say this fact is known and agreed.

That doesn't change the fact that the IG's report is a devastating rebuke of the actions of the most senior intelligence officials, in conjunction with the Bush administration.

Now, the reality is that one point of the WaPo article was wrong, and they corrected it. Shall we move on and respond to the rest that is not contested? Well, no, because people like you will not let go of a misattributed quote, and want to use it to not only deny the other undisputed statements in the article, but also wholly deny the conclusions of the IG report on which the article is based.

If you can explain how a misattributed quote in the WaPo somehow reflects upon the accuracy and integrity of the Inspector General's office, I'd like to hear it.

You claim that the truth is important - but don't care about misreporting when it benefits your already established POV. That simply makes no sense.

You claim the facts are important, but you don't care about the facts when you can instead carry on about someone else who reported one fact wrong. That makes no sense. How about you cancel your subscription to the WaPo, and respond to the IG's report directly?

Sorry to debunk your "debunked" and "informed" rebuttals. I'm sure Jo and OhioVoter are quite disappointed.

aRepukelican, I se... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

aRepukelican,

I see that you still avoid my question.

Which was "Prove it was a lie and not simply misinformation."

Thanks for the laugh BTW. I didn't think anyone - liberal or conservative - still took the LATimes seriously as a source.

However, since you chose to quote them, may I ask why you didn't READ the link you quoted. I assume that you didn't READ it because it certainly DOESN'T say what you claim it says.

I suppose it is possible that you have absolutely no 'real world' business experience and that's why you believe that it is a devastating indictment of how things are done in the 'real world'. For those of us with experience in real world negotiations, it sounds like 'sour grapes' from the group who lost the argument - after the fact.

Give it another try - you are entertaining.

Brian,I also "get"... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Brian,

I also "get" that you don't care if the Washington Post reports a lie as truth.

That's fine - it certainly explains how you have come to some of the conclusions that you have made.

However, when a news source has so COMPLETELY misrepresented an issue as has the Washington Post in this case, then they deserve to have their credibility called into quesiton.

Now, to compare the Washington Post's lie to the IG Report ...

You have absolutely no problem with the Washington Post's lie in this circumstance. Let's look at HOW their lie came to be. Did they have conflicting reports of information with no way to varify which of the many reports was the truth?

Nope, they had two reports that they could have opened in two windows side by side or laid the hard copy on the table side by side and compared them while writing their article.

Nonetheless, they got it wrong and made false claimed that the information cited (not one quote as you are attempting to claim but ALL the information cited came from the IG report when, in fact it came from a partisian report issued by a Senator.)

Whoops! That's a whopping big mistake for a professional to make.

But, you are OK with the public being misinformed.

Now, you seem to think the IG's report is a devastating indictment of the Bush administration. In it, the IG - looking at all the information AFTER THE FACT - apparently has decided that Feith acted "inappropirately" (a stinging rebuke if I ever heard one LOL!)

What did Feith do? In a period when even most Democratic leaders agreed that Sadaam Hussein was a danger to the US, he aggresively argued his own position on what the war intelligence meant. The IG (in highsight) believes that he was wrong in taking such an action. The IG believes (in hindsight) that other intelligence agencies - which, BTW, it admits was WRONG its own assessment - should have been listened to instead.

Now, if you had some real world business experience, you would know that reports like the IG's are important and should be reviewed. It allows the company to see faults in their information processing in crisis situations and helps them to improve it.

However, anyone who thinks that they should be adhered to rigidly is a fool.

When information is in flux, you have to act with the best information you have at the time. If, as you suggest, all information should be gathered and debated endlessly until everyone agrees, you not only waste a considerable amount of time, but your company will be paralyzed into inaction and for what - information that will may reflect consensus but is going to be both out-dated and inaccurate by the time you act on it.

Sorry to debunk your "debunked" and "informed" rebuttals. I'm sure Jo and OhioVoter are quite disappointed.

What did you "debunk"?

If you seriously think "acted inappropriately" as a criticism is an indictment, then perhaps Jay and company should start using it with the trolls. LOL!

As above, read & weep. T... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

As above, read & weep. The IG Report reflects that Feith & OSP was cooking up a steaming serving of the crap that you have been heartily wolfing down for the past 5 years.

You mean Feith didn't listen to the fact that the CIA had no worries?

Gee, how bad of him. I mean, the CIA was SPOT-ON when it came to the whole detection of the 9/11 plot and all. They definitely deserve deference given their track record of finding stuff out and being perfect.

I mean, how many CIA "slam dunk" cases didn't end up being exactly what was thought?

BTW, using the logic of you, you didn't mess up the links. You blatantly lied about them and then covered them up later.

That's not what happened. The citation was accurate. The source was misattributed.

When your story is of the report and you cite a 2 YEAR OLD STATEMENT FROM A DEMOCRAT --- no, the citation is not correct since "2 Year Old Statement from Democrat" might be hard to sell as a "news" story.

If I said something about, say, Kerry and cite, say, Iowahawk --- even if what I cite is going to incorrect since WHAT I WAS CITING WAS NOT WHAT I SAID I WAS CITING.

It's not that hard to grasp, is it?

Nope, but Levin said it. That it was said is confirmed true. It was just misattributed.

IT DIDN'T REMOTELY GO ALONG WITH THE STORY BEING REPORTED. You are SERIOUSLY going to excuse this?

If you are claiming that the Pentagon policy chief taking "inappropriate" action in advancing conclusions "not backed up by the nation's intelligence agencies" is "not harsh", then you're just demonstrating the kind of dishonest behavior the right condones, and even expects.

Nothing illegal whatsoever. Yeah, not that harsh.

Again, the CIA said it was a SLAM DUNK that Saddam had WMD. We should just go with their word on things, seeing their track record of accuracy and all.
-=Mike

Again, the CIA said it w... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Again, the CIA said it was a SLAM DUNK that Saddam had WMD.

No, TENET said that. The CIA didn't. THAT'S the point.

the IG - looking at all ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

the IG - looking at all the information AFTER THE FACT - apparently has decided that Feith acted "inappropirately" (a stinging rebuke if I ever heard one LOL!)

Should we be surprised that you think "acting inappropriately" is acceptable behavior for someone in his position? If so, why bother having the report at all? Why not just ask "legal or illegal" and be leave it at that? If not, what is the proper penalty for "acting inappropriately"? Is it that you get to attack those who revealed that inappropriate behavior?

What did Feith do? ...he aggresively argued his own position on what the war intelligence meant.

No, he ignored the consensus of opinions provided by the United States intelligence infrastructure. Did he think he knew better? Was he playing to someone else's agenda? In either case, he was wrong.

Now, if you had any real world business experience, you'd know that when you go against consensus and you're right, you are cheered as a visionary. When you go against consensus and you're wrong, you get fired and blamed.

Now, if you had any real wo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Now, if you had any real world business experience, you'd know that when you go against consensus and you're right, you are cheered as a visionary. When you go against consensus and you're wrong, you get fired and blamed.
------------------------------------------------
That 's why the dems/liberals are so despicable because they want it both ways. That 's why the liberals do not live in the real world. In the real world, you made the decisions you have at the time given all risks and uncertainty you have to deal with. Only the people who don't have to deal with real life problems can afford to be second guessing. That 's why dems/liberals do not deserve to be in power. Historical records show that liberal policies failed miserably in real life, especially when it comes to fighting the evils of the world (communism and now terrorism).

Oh, BTW the consensus befor... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Oh, BTW the consensus before the Iraq war that Saddam posed a threat to a region and the world wrt WMD and terrorism. This consensus includes the clinton adm, the UN, the Europeans, and the Russians.

Also, on the other hand, we need principle not just consensus. The consensus at the UN is nothing but the tyrannical, anti-Semitic, anti-American, pro-terrorists. That 's why the liberals/democrats are so entrenched with the corrupt UN.

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

LoveAmeriKa Enemagrunt

I cannot possibly imagine how you ever passed your Immigration test; you are so abominably silly.

I imagine that when you left Viet Nam, the collective national IQ there went up several scores of points.

At least that government is relieved of the burden of caring for another mentally handicapped citizen at state expense.

communist agent, YO... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

communist agent,
YOur post is contentless. I don't see you refute any point in my post. I wonder why you are so illiterate about history and logic. Heard about liberals destroying public education in America. I don't have a first-hand experience in public schools. But you may be an example of such a disastrous liberal public education.

Let me explain to you about the fundamental point (hope you get why the liberals really don't know how to deal with real problems and all they have is smear/slander to undermine the real fight against the radical islamic terrorists).

Saddam Hussein did have WMD (he used in on the Kurds). He was under UN sanctions and inspection regime. He openly flouted the UN sanctions and actively bribed the UN (France, Germany, Russian, China) with the oil-for-food program. Given the expected uncertainty of intelligence, we knew at the very least that he had a WMD program which can exploited by the terrorists. We need to take care of him to send a message to the terrorists and the Iranian mullahs about not bluffing or flouting the US. Only liberals do not understand this basic strategy and only care about smearing the effort. I wonder how they let you graduate from high school given your contentless in this forum.

In case you don't understan... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

In case you don't understand my point, let me give a simpler example. LEt 's say a criminal (Saddam here) is on probation and under supervision. When this criminal keeps flouting the police (the UN or really the US), you cannot let him continue flouting you and ignore the laws. When the police comes at him, he pointed a gun at the police, the police should take him whether he is pointing a real gun or not. Hope you get the point now.

No, TENET said that. The... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

No, TENET said that. The CIA didn't. THAT'S the point.

Who on God's Earth do you think Tenet was speaking for?

HIMSELF?

HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE CIA.

If the head of the CIA tells you it's a slam dunk, it means the CIA itself is confident in it.

Should we be surprised that you think "acting inappropriately" is acceptable behavior for someone in his position? If so, why bother having the report at all? Why not just ask "legal or illegal" and be leave it at that? If not, what is the proper penalty for "acting inappropriately"? Is it that you get to attack those who revealed that inappropriate behavior?

Punish because a group thinks what was done was inappropriate?

Should he be FIRED for not actually doing anything against the rules?

If that's your belief, well, we have some Congresspeople who ALSO need to go home from the Dem Party.

No, he ignored the consensus of opinions provided by the United States intelligence infrastructure. Did he think he knew better? Was he playing to someone else's agenda? In either case, he was wrong.

Yes, an outside view is ALWAYS a bad thing. I mean, when your doctor gives you bad news, a second opinion is THOROUGHLY frowned upon.

"Bush doesn't listen to enough opinions!"
"What about this?"
"Well, here, he listened to too many opinions".

The man can't win with you.

Now, if you had any real world business experience, you'd know that when you go against consensus and you're right, you are cheered as a visionary. When you go against consensus and you're wrong, you get fired and blamed.

The consensus justified the action. If he listened to the doubters, Bush would have gone against the long-held consensus.
-=Mike

Who on God's Earth do yo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Who on God's Earth do you think Tenet was speaking for?

Of course, he was supposed to be represnting the conclusions of the CIA analysts. But he took it upon himself to completely misrepresent what they reported.

If the head of the CIA tells you it's a slam dunk, it means the CIA itself is confident in it.

That's what it should mean. But if the head of the CIA lies about what the rest of the organization told him, then that's called "misrepresenting the consensus". And that's why he got fired.

Yes, an outside view is ALWAYS a bad thing. I mean, when your doctor gives you bad news, a second opinion is THOROUGHLY frowned upon.

A second opinion from the hospital administrator, instead of another doctor? Yes, it is THOROUGHLY frowned upon.

"Bush doesn't listen to enough opinions!"
"What about this?"
"Well, here, he listened to too many opinions".
The man can't win with you.

No, the problem is when you decide which opinion to listen to based on what you want to be true, rather than consider them in aggregate. So when you wind up with 20 opinions that are the same, and you go with the 21st one that's different but you like it better, THAT'S called misrepresenting the consensus.

The consensus justified the action. If he listened to the doubters, Bush would have gone against the long-held consensus.

OK, I finally figured you out! You live in Bizarro World, where everything is backwards. You see, in THIS reality, the CIA analyst consensus was that Saddam had no WMD and was not a threat. So in THIS reality, the consensus was the EXACT OPPOSITE of the action, and Bush DID go against the long-held consensus.

Now, if you had any real... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Now, if you had any real world business experience, you'd know that when you go against consensus and you're right, you are cheered as a visionary. When you go against consensus and you're wrong, you get fired and blamed.

No, actually that is what I have been saying all along. Thank goodness you finally ... FINALLY got the point. I was beginning to wonder if it was possible that you would NEVER get it.

Brian, you want to second guess every decision made after the fact - go for it. Have a great time.

The rest of us will be living in the real world.

Yes, we occasionally will miss that applause as a "visionary" and get the "boos" as the "goat". But, sometimes it will go the other way and we will get called the "visionary".

It's called living life - instead of hiding from it.

It's clear that it's important to you to always be right. The problem is that you have "always being right" confused with "never being wrong". "Never being wrong" means that you sit back and don't give an opinion to you have all the facts AND RESULTS and then criticize those who dared to put forth an effort.

Being "right" means that you have to risk "being wrong". You aren't willing to pay that price.

;-)

OhioVoter, you're full of i... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

OhioVoter, you're full of it. I have plenty of real world business experience. If I presented a crucial report to my boss, which he used to make a bet-the-company decision, and he found out that I hadn't presented him with the whole story, but only that which I wished to be true, then yes, my ass would be fired.

You guys continually try to whitewash not only the report, but Feith's actions. Read any of the available books on the run-up to the war, and it's clear that the White House was cherry picking intelligence. All of the experts at the Department of Energy agreed that the aluminum tubes cited by the Bush administration were unsuitable for use in a centrifuge. But one guy at CIA, who was in the White House's favor, insisted that the tubes were for use in developing a nuclear weapon. Even though he had no training in the area, his opinion was allowed to prevail simply because that's what the White House wanted to hear.

Much of the information linking Saddam to al Qaeda came from a single source, code named Curveball. The intelligence community insisted he was not to be trusted. But members of the administration, up to and including Cheney, wqere reading raw intelligence data and drawing their own analysis from it. Believe it or not, it actually takes training to analyze intelligence data. What in the world made Libby or Cheney expert enough to do their own analysis? Especially considering that they were dead wrong on almost every count. All of this attempt to make the story about the Washington Post ignore one basic fact: the administration was wrong every step of the way. All of this lame excuse making, "but they didn't know they were wrong," is just pathetic. The Washington Post misattributed quotes that changed the nature of the story. Boo to them. But to claim that their story in no way reflected the tone of the report is just whistling by the graveyard. You guys are so desperate to get back on the winning track that you're willing to claim that the bias in a Washington Post story is more important than a landmark report on the mistakes that were made in the lead-up to a war that has gone devastatingly wrong.

And Jo, "Ka Ching! Excellent and informed rebuttals Ohio, Mike, etc. Game, set, match to conservatives on this thread. Next."

Really? How Republican of you, declaring victory despite all the facts. Shouldn't you be standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier when you make a statement like that?

And finally, I'm glad to see that Jay Tea's outrage at outrageous comments is so consistent. Fail to show proper sympathy to DJ's illness and be threatened with banishment. But Scrapiron declares that someone shooting a liberal politician would be a "hero," crickets. You guys are so big on how you're the only ones who truly respect that our fighting men and women are heroes. I notice no one made a peep when Scrapiron included assassins among their ranks. Why can't Scrapiron be reasonable like Rob LA Ca., who only suggested to groucho that "You and your lying sleeper cell buddies should have your tongues cut off the same way they cut off the hand of a thief in Saudi Arabia." Tell me again how the liberals are always the ones making outrageous statements on this board.

Calm down, Chris O. LOL!</... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Calm down, Chris O. LOL!

You can make multiple posts - you don't have to force ALL your DNC talking posts to fit into the same post.

OhioVoter, you're full of it. I have plenty of real world business experience. If I presented a crucial report to my boss, which he used to make a bet-the-company decision, and he found out that I hadn't presented him with the whole story, but only that which I wished to be true, then yes, my ass would be fired.

Anyone who actually had real world business experience would know that if you presented a report to your boss and claimed it was written by EXPERT XYZ - and then it turned out that the author was actually Carl down in Accounting, that is when you would be fired.

Unless, of course, you write for the Washington Post and then people like Chris O wouldn't care if you were printing the truth or not and defend your deception because your deception matched the POV he already had. The truth doesn't matter if he agrees with the lie.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy