… you remember, that’s the program that Harry Reid, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., John D. Rockefeller IV, and Carl LevinÂ have said Saddam didn’t have.Â They acknowledge it now by complainingÂ that the declassification ofÂ some of the captured documents, so the public can see what was happening there,Â may be dangerous.Â These are documents recovered in Baghdad when US forces first went in.Â Â Making them available does tend to verify and validate the fact that, on this subject, Bush was right, and they were wrong.Â And don’t expect to hear them admit that they were wrong and Bush was right either.Â
The play is to forget about what was in the documents, and toÂ make an issue over making them public, ignoringÂ the obvious facts contained therein.
They are good at deflection and use it often.Â Â ThisÂ deflection is reminiscent of the Kennedy judicial obstruction memo that was read from a shared file on a computer network.Â A networkÂ that was shared by republicans and democrats in the Senate.Â Amazingly, Kennedy (with the help of the media by ignoring the content of the memos) was able to make the issue an issue of ‘how did republicans get his memos,’ instead of what was actually IN those memos.Â What was IN those memosÂ was their plan to politicize the Judiciary committee’s work in the handling of Bush’s judicial nominees.
ref: Byron York, Feb, 2004
Sooner or later something will happen that highlights the differences of Democrats and Republicans. The Jim Gibbons episode is one of these events. Ask Jennifer Flowers what Clinton officials/advisers said about her, and how the N.O.W. gang ignored her and her complaint (which Clinton settled out of court over).
When a democrat runs afoul, you see other dems having a pep rally on the capitol steps or (when Clinton was impeached) on the White House lawn, all lined up in support of their accused politician. And they also denigrate the accuser. I remember James Carville likening Jennifer Flowers as someone who will jump at a dollar bill if you drag it through the trailer park.
Shoe on the other foot. When a republican runs afoul, like Foley, Livingston, and others, the party expects them to pay the price. They don’t get behind the accused, and they don’t bad-mouth the accuser. You don’t hear anyone saying that Gibbons’ accuser, waitress Chrissy Mazzeo, is a gold digger or trailer park trash. And his republican colleagues, while disappointed with the news, say that if the accusations are true then he should go. But there is no pre-judgement of the matter. No pep-rally.
How these parties react to situations like this really does illuminate the character of both.
“He has been called a faker by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh” writes Katherine (Katie) Shaver. Below is all I have to say about the FOX-Limbaugh brew ha-ha. It’s a ‘comment’ I sent to Katie about her article.
Katie, Are you a little embarrassed by your premise? You should be. Apparently you have been listening to everyone but Rush. Is that what journalists do? Listen to critics instead of the source? Especially when the source is so easily accessible?
Rush’s reaction to Fox’s jittery-looking commercial was, exactly, that Fox was either acting or was off his medication. Fox IS an actor, and he does take meds for his condition. Comprende? That was just a normal reaction to what was seen. It was an aside, if you will, from Rush’s point, which was that the bill was disguised by its name as a stem-cell research bill when it was actually a cloning bill. It attempts to codify cloning by explicitly using the scientific term for the procedure in the State’s constitution. That was the point, which you missed.
You, Katie, are faking the truth. The truth, if you’re interested, like a journalist should be interested, can be found in the radio show’s transcripts. Now, if YOU want to say that all actors are fakers, that’s fine. Many in your profession are fake journalists. But to say Rush said something that he didn’t say, is just a lie that suits a purpose instead of a ‘journalistic’ piece.
Have a great liberal day. Enjoy your anger towards conservatives. You deserve it.
He has been called a faker by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, and he withstands the gazes of hundreds of people as his lips tremble, a hand shakes or a foot jerks in a wild spasm.
Until being caught ‘on the take’ in Saddam’s oil-for-food program, there didn’t seem to be any media coverage of the goings-on in French society. My perception was that things must be fine in France. Fine wine and french fries. It was all good. Since then, however, the French have been seen as double-crossers by myself and others who show their displeasure by not buying their wine, and french fries became freedom fries. In real life, there are consequences for one’s actions and France is no exception.
How they react to a well-deserved shunning is, well, rather French. The French press declares Halloween dead, as “a cultural reaction linked to the rise of anti-Americanism.” A shop owner said “Our Halloween sales have been falling by half every year since 2002.” Their media sees this as some sort of victory for France. OK, I see it as somewhat of a loss for French kids to have some fun one day a year.
Halloween losing favor in France is small potatoes compared to what’s happening in their streets and ghettos. They are in the process of losing their identity and sovereignty to people who want France and don’t want to be French. There is a reluctance in Europe and the UK to admit what is really going on, and it’s all about ‘immigration’ and migration. It’s not simply “youths” challenging authority, they are challenging France. And they’re not just youths, they are the radical Islamists, Muslims, who have an affinity for burning buses, attacking police and other symbols of French society.
France has bigger problems than Halloween and freedom fries. Their cradle-to-grave socialist government has forced them to open their borders to people who don’t want to assimilate, but rather dominate. From here it seems like they haven’t a prayer or the political will to stop it.