Who can take these guys seriously anymore? No Fox News "reporter" or "news anchor" should ever be hired in a real news station anymore. You don't agree, then watch this:
They've become a self-parody. "Fair and balanced" has become a synonym for "we do the exact opposite of what we claim."
It has now come to light that the detainee abuse in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan started when the Bush administration ordered our interrogators to use a document called: "Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance."
This was a 1957 document that showed how the Chinese Communists tortured people -- in order to get false confessions! The only thing we changed was that we dropped the title of the document. Otherwise it is exactly the same. We have been using communist torture tactics that are designed to get false confessions. Meanwhile, The Bush administration has been calling it "enhanced interrogations" and saying we got "valuable intelligence" from it.
More details on the story here:
If you want to read the story of how we came to use this document for our own interrogations, you can click here. This is deplorable. Will anyone ever suffer the consequences for ordering this illegal torture? Will the press question John McCain on why he voted to allow the CIA to continue doing this? I wouldn't bank on it.
But if we do this, and no one ever gets punished for it, can we really say that America doesn't torture anymore? Watch the Best Web TV Show Here and Here
In this article on Huffington Post, you can see that an Obama campaign insider seems to be laying the groundwork for moving to the right on Iraq. Here's the relevant quote:
Speaking on background, a source in the Obama campaign admitted to a certain frustration with the current narrative of their candidate "moving to the center" on issues where the Illinois Democrat has always staked out moderate ground. When talking about a gradual pullout from Iraq during the primary season, for example, Obama took some abuse from the "immediate withdrawal" crowd for his repeated mantra that "we should be just as careful getting out" of Iraq as we were "careless getting in." (And indeed, as represented by the "Responsible Plan" website, that kind of talk is firmly in the mainstream of activist anti-Iraq war sentiment anyway.) In the aftermath of Obama's FISA repositioning, the Obama campaign's fear, however, is that every subsequent moderate noise will be interpreted as a cynical centrist tack.
I'm worried this sounds like a campaign floating the idea that they might move their position on Iraq. They seem to be trying to prepare the ground that Obama has always been for gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Here's the thing, almost no one is for immediate withdrawal. That's a straw man argument. So, why are they now bringing up this gradual withdrawal point? I think bending on his 16 month timeline for withdrawal during the general election campaign is a terrible idea. I explain why below:
There is a difference between moving to the center and moving to the right. There is a difference between making tough choices about Iraq once you get into office and flip-flopping in the middle of the campaign. There is a difference between being moderate and being weak. Changing your position on such a central issue would be taken as a tremendous sign of weakness. They better not even be thinking about it.
Obama didn't come this far by running a traditional campaign. Why would you switch now and go back to running the same old conventional losing campaign that Democrats have run for so long? Appeasing the right brings you no political friends. It just brings you justified scorn from both sides. Go with what brought you here, not some cheap old political tricks.
Everyone has been lambasting General Wesley Clark today over his comments about John McCain, including Barack Obama who rejected his comments. But has anyone watched the comments? Not only does General Clark not disparage John McCain's war record, he calls him his "hero" for how courageous he was in his service.
The only point General Clark is making is that this does not translate to having experience in executive responsibility. That point is not only uncontroversial, it is indisputable. Is everyone who got shot out of a plane or spent time in a POW camp qualified to be President of the United States? Of course, not.
Does that experience and how he handled it speak to John McCain's courage? Absolutely. His service to the country? No doubt. But does it speak to whether he has the national security or foreign policy experience necessary to be president? Absolutely not.
Watch General Clark's comments here and judge for yourself whether he said something outrageous or perfectly rational:
The Republicans did an internal accounting to see what they were doing wrong in Congressional races (because they got mauled in the 2006 elections and the special election since). The results are amusing. We explain them in the short video below:
One of McCain's campaign managers, Charlie Black, told Fortune magazine that an attack on the United States would be good for John McCain's campaign. As I explain in the video below, I'm not a big advocate of over-emphasizing these campaign gaffes but imagine if Obama's campaign had said this:
You know that if an Obama adviser said an attack on America would help their campaign, there would be a media riot over it. They would cover nothing else until that staffer was fired and Obama and denounced and rejected him and everyone he knows. This would be the largest news story for weeks. Now, let's see what happens to McCain and see how fair and balanced our media really is. Young Turks on You Tube
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claimed over and over during the primaries that they were strong leaders who could take America in a new direction. They also claimed that George W. Bush was the worst president in US history. Then, how come they have never been able to beat him in almost any legislative battles?
This week they surrendered again. This time it was about giving immunity to telecommunication companies who broke the law to placate the Bush administration. Nearly everyone involved admits they broke the law -- otherwise they wouldn't need immunity.
I didn't rob a bank, so I don't need immunity for robbery. Everyone should have their rights, and that definitely applies to the telecom companies and the Bush administration as well, so it should be very simple for them to go into a courthouse and show there was nothing wrong with what they did. Except they can't, and that's why desperately need immunity for the crimes they have committed.
This isn't about spying on terrorists. The FISA court gives out warrants like they're growing on trees. If they spied on terrorists, it's the easiest thing in the world to show. No, this is for breaking the law and spying on Americans without a court order. Do we know who they spied on? No, and now we never will. Why? The Democrats are going to give these companies -- and by extension the Bush administration -- immunity for breaking the law.
In essence, the Democrats are giving a preemptive pardon to George Bush and everyone else that authorized and participated in this illegal surveillance program.
Now, if we only had a couple of strong leaders on the Democratic side who could stop this. Oh wait a minute, I remember two people that kept telling me how strong and capable they were. One of them even claimed that change was coming. You know when it might be a good time for change? Right about now.
Instead, Hillary Clinton is on vacation somewhere doing absolutely nothing about this immunity bill. When it's not about her career, all of a sudden she's not that moved to fight for us, our laws and our constitution. Since she's not going to be president, she's taken her ball and gone home.
And what about Obama? Nothing. Worse than nothing, because he's actually thinking about voting with the Republicans on a so-called compromise, which in the words of Sen. Feingold is nothing short of a "capitulation." Leadership you can believe in!
You think I sound angry here, you should have seen me all week on the show. If you want to see what I think of pathetic Democratic weakness, watch this (not safe for work or with kids around). The Democrats make it nearly impossible to respect them. And if you want to see what I think of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's awful record of leadership on this issue, watch this:
If you can't beat the most unpopular president of all time in a simple legislative fight like this, how can you claim to be a strong and effective leader?
We just found out that the person in charge of investigating detainee treatment in the past for the Pentagon said the Bush administration is committing "war crimes." And that the four major Western oil companies have conveniently received no-bid contracts to take the oil out of Iraq.
And what has the press done with these stories? Not a damn thing. War crimes -- don't sweat it. A war that cost thousands of lives so that the oil companies can get no-bid contracts -- don't even look into it. The news editors in this country are a national embarrassment. They wouldn't know news if it slapped them across the face. They're too busy typing out the latest government press release as if it's real news.
Here is the war crimes story and what the press did about it:
Here is the Iraqi oil story and what the press did about it (can you see a pattern here):
The press is supposed to challenge power, not suck up to it. It seems they have completely forgotten this part of the job description. Television is the worst, I don't know why we call those paid actors and models reporters anymore. Other than a handful of quality journalists, the rest of them have no idea what the news is and they are matched in their incompetence and cowardice by their own news editors. God forbid someone actually wants to report on the news, that's when the editors come in to spike the story. This system is fundamentally broken and it will take a long time to repair, if ever.
This man has no conscience. He didn't care to get Osama bin Laden for seven long years and now the Times Online in the UK is reporting Bush is putting on the pressure to get Osama before he leaves office. He wants it for his legacy. It was never about those people who died on September 11th. This has always been about George Bush's terrible and despicable ego. It's easy to see why the country is repulsed by this man:
Here are the quotes where Bush said he didn't care about getting Osama bin Laden. He wasn't concerned about him. How did the country and the press let him get away with that? Imagine if a Democrat had said that?
The press claims they're better now after the lessons they learned from how they covered the lead-up to the Iraq War. In fact, they've learned nothing. Today, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said the Bush administration committed "war crimes." War crimes!
Imagine if a Democrat was accused of that? Now, how do you think the press is going to cover this (with the obvious exception of McClatchy Newspapers, whose coverage has been exemplary)? I guarantee you'll hardly hear a peep.
The Bush administration soiled the good name of America. Their ought to be a price for that. But they are just going to walk out of that White House as if they did nothing wrong. If that doesn't make you angry, you're not paying attention.
Barack Obama's Father's Day speech over the weekend was terrific. The media has focused on what he said about absent black fathers, but there was another side to the speech and it spoke to the responsibility we all have as fathers and as a society. Within that explanation, Obama, in essence, explained what it means to be a liberal:
We haven't given you an absurd new story in awhile, so let's have some fun. Though arm-pit sniffing is no joke, especially in Singapore apparently. Look at the punishment this sniffer got:
Pat Buchanan has a new way of describing Barack Obama -- exotic. Gee, I wonder if this word is loaded with racial and ethnic implications? On the upside, at least this wasn't on Fox News Channel. It's good to get some diversity.
Here's Pat Buchanan being called out on his absurd description of Obama:
The title of this post sounds facetious, but in fact, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana says it is literal. He wrote an essay in 1994 claiming he took part in an exorcism where he battled Lucifer and won! That's bad ass. Now that's the kind of experience we need in the White House. If he can beat the Devil imagine what he can do Al Qaeda.
Just when you thought the Republicans couldn't get any more nuts, Governor Jindal is here to prove you wrong. Listen for the unbelievable details here:
This guys is being considered for the VP slot by McCain. Now, I'm not going to put this on McCain. I doubt he knew about the exorcism, or approves of battling Satan in your down time. And he hasn't even picked Jindal. This is part of the normal vetting process and I hope Jindal has now been effectively vetted out of consideration.
So, putting the McCain connection aside, how did this guy get to be governor? Atheists who believe in a rational world have no chance in politics in this country, but stark raving mad guys like this are considered legitimate and electable? What does that tell you about us? Now, that's the real scary thought. Young Turks on You Tube or Enter Rebel Headquarters Here
First, there was the press fascination with Michelle and Barack Obama's fist bump before Tuesday night's victory speech (what is all the fuss about - people have been doing this in America for a long time -- it is neither a scary new concept or even anything that is particularly cool). But now, as usual, Fox News has taken it over the top.
If I described how they characterized this fist bump, you wouldn't believe it, so watch it for yourself (an MSNBC report on how bewildering this new concept is comes first and then the insane Fox description):
What's great about Fox now is that they've lost all subtlety, so we don't have to try to convince anyone that they are a conservative propaganda outfit anymore. It's as clear as anything can possibly be. The slogan "fair and balanced" has become a joke everyone gets. It has entered the lexicon as an ironic statement meant to convey the opposite of what is really happening.
Now that Fox News has become full-blown parody of itself, the next question is -- how can anyone hire people who work on Fox as legitimate "news" reporters anywhere else? Whatever it is that they do over there clearly isn't journalism, so why in the world would anyone hire these people as legitimate journalists again?
