Mc Cain was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.

Wow Whoa WTF? Bad Bad Badly done! Yikes! Johnny boy!

I understand Mc Cain picking out a niche being Pro War and a man of conviction (while trying to have it both ways as the guy who criticized the prosecution of the war but now; gung ho!)

John came off as... as... as... well you decide... http://tinyurl.com/3alvzp (BTW, that http://Tinyurl.com is a great site for shortening links)

You'll want to see part two too.

This is not the John Mc Cain that usually showed up at the Daily Show. I believe he feels that Stewart has been rough on him since Mc Cain started "running to the right" in prep for this campaign. and I don't know that I'd disagree. But then, He has made a bit of a spectacle of himself given where he was running from, to.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Wow Whoa WTF? Bad Bad Badly done! Yikes! Johnny boy! [/quote]

Imagine this, I disagree. McCain faced a hostile crowd and a hostile host and made his point. It demonstrated courage, something he has in spades.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] I understand Mc Cain picking out a niche being Pro War and a man of conviction (while trying to have it both ways as the guy who criticized the prosecution of the war but now; gung ho!) [/quote]

It isn't a "niche" in the GOP as every candidate supports the war. He's doing nothing of the sort of "having it both ways". He's supportive of the war itself and he's been critical of the process for a couple of years now. He's been calling for more troops, and the surge answers his prayers. Nothing "both ways" about that, even though that's the new anti-McCain talking point.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

This is not the John Mc Cain that usually showed up at the Daily Show. I believe he feels that Stewart has been rough on him since Mc Cain started "running to the right" in prep for this campaign. [/quote]

That "running to the right" is another great anti-McCain talking point. Is he making bridges with the right part of the party? Sure. Has he changed his views? Nope.

That talking point is used to cover the natural transition of the role of McCain to non-Republicans and the media. The fact is that McCain was every Democrat's favorite Republican SO LONG AS he could be used as a weapon against Bush. Now that he may get elected president the need to go after him outweighs his former utility as a GOP'er that's critical of Bush. Sooooo, the excuse to treat him differently (or hate him now, if you're just a rank and file Democrat) is that "he's run to the right", as if he's become Pat Robertson's pal.

You watch, Chuck Hagel will now for the "straight talker" role as the Democrat's favorite Republican. 

should read “will now FILL the role”…

Mc Cain was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.\

What are these shows you are talking about?   Kidding.... I have heard of them.  The mere fact that McCain would even appear on this dreck assures that he will never NEVER be the candidate for the Republican party.

McCain faced a hostile crowd and a hostile host and made his point.

Made his point to whom? Certainly not to the crowd or the host.

McCain used to be The Daily Show's favorite Republican (and to no small degree, one of it's top 25 favorite active politicians). He may still be both things. It was just out of "Daily Show" character for McCain to bulldoze his way through, overspeaking the conversation.

[quote=babbling looney]

Mc Cain was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night.\

What are these shows you are talking about?   Kidding.... I have heard of them.  The mere fact that McCain would even appear on this dreck assures that he will never NEVER be the candidate for the Republican party.

[/quote]

Eh, I disagree, BL, the guy's willing to go anywhere and face any audience. There's something to be said about that in a day and age when some Democrats refuse to even debate each other on Fox.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

McCain faced a hostile crowd and a hostile host and made his point.

Made his point to whom? Certainly not to the crowd or the host. [/quote]

You're confusing making his point and defending his POV in the face of a hostile host and audience with  winning them over to his side. The former is what he did, the latter was never even a possibility.

The fact that he even tried says a great deal about his personal courage. People not used to hanging on Stewart's every word as if he were something more than a comic reading a teleprompter trying to wade into weighty issues get that.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

McCain used to be The Daily Show's favorite Republican (and to no small degree, one of it's top 25 favorite active politicians). He may still be both things. [/quote]

"Still"? Nah, his utility as a Bush-basher has now been overcome by the threat he presents to the same people who used to love him (but would never dream of voting for him) as a possible president. The knives are out, things about him that were ignored in the past, like his support for the war, his pro-life position, will now become the central issue about him whenever his name is mentioned.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]It was just out of "Daily Show" character for McCain to bulldoze his way through, overspeaking the conversation.

[/quote]

Again, we disagree. Stewart was trying to jump from empty talking point (and they are, each and every one of them, empty) to empty talkinging point because none of them can withstand even a basic examination, and he didn't want to give McCain a chance to knock them down. McCain was unwilling to allow Stewart and his audience to run over him with those talking points without being given the chance to respond to each of them. IOW, McCain wouldn't allow Stewart to used the tired, old wack-a-mole approach.

If you say so.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]If you say so.[/quote]

Exactly. Differing points of view with no screaming, crying, ranting, shifting of standards/definitions or impugning of anyone’s integrity….imagine that.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

If you say so.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]If you say so.[/quote]

You remind me of Gore's line about leopards being unable to change their stripes...

Hillary might be good at getting rid of Bin Laden and other bad men

like Bobby Hall, Meanjob and the mob

A woman in office might just be the ticket.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01292007/news/nationalnews/hills _evil_joke_on_hubby_bubba_nationalnews_ian_bishop______post_ correspondent.htm

another link:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/am-clintonsid e0129,0,2397639.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

All intelligent, thoughtful, considerate people know that Hillary and her ilk

are, in fact, pigs.

Ok so over this past week, there have been a couple of TV items that caught my eye.

The first was a Bill Moyers report on how the White House lied us into the war in Iraq.

It wasn't so much about the lies as it was the complicity of the media in those lies.

The press corps sitting in scripted "Press Conferences" so absurd that even Bush couldn't keep a straight face!

The overarching theme was how the New York Times had abrogated it's duty to inspect stories for truth.

This (as much of the story) was nothing news to me (not that I'm even some shining examplar) I knew at the time (and I was a regular poster at the NYT website and got into more than one heated debate over the Time's role, generally with knuckledraggers who insisted that the Times was a tool of the Left) that the NYT was deficient and it wasn't the first time that they were so in that the did the same thing during the whole Clinton "Scandals" era.

During that era what the NYT often (as in always) did was cite an article that was in the Washington Times. Since they were reporting that there was a report (as opposed to reporting that such and such HAPPENED) there was no need for third party coroboration.

During the Bush era, the administration essentially "cut out the middleman" and leaked stories directly to the NYT which they then cited as proof of the elements of the story leaked. (The WH gives the NYT a story of supposed intelligence and then, on the day the story hits, a Sunday, Cheney is on Meet The Press and cites the NYT article as though it were independent, and due to the NYT's reputation as a liberal rag, non partisan.)

The program does explain where Judith Miller comes into play here and that is a story that I am still only mildly aware of.

Turns out the Knight Ridder had this story from the get go and knew that the whole WMD/African Nukes/aluminum tubes line was hokum. But nobody listened, because they weren't a news presence in NYC or DC.

Interestingly, the "Red States" knew (or could have if their local paper had run the KR copy) more clearly that the administration was lying, and the Blue New England had the disinformation.

It's absolutely worth seeing.

Second program is the Tenet tour. Last night he was on 60 Minutes and this morning he was on NBC at least. He's out promoting his book and so there is a grain of salt with which I take this guy. Then there is the chunk of salt you take when you notice that he's still doing a cya in defending the absolutely ridiculous charges presented by Colin Powell to the UN. (Again, not to polish my own apple, but right after Powell was finished, I said to co-workers, not only is that ridiculous, but it doesn't stand up to the rule of evidence. I said, this is a capital case, people are going to die because of this, you couldn't send a single man to the chair based on that evidence, and yet you are going to kill tens of thousands? This is the type of verbiage that was used on 60 minutes, Tenet saying you might win a civil case, but not a criminal case with that information. I didn't win a whole lot of  converts then, nor do I expect I will now. it's just nice to see that I was correct. It's rare that you get to see that with such certainty.) 

Tenet is an excitable boy and I try not to hold that against him. He has been called on one fact (when he said that Richard Pearle talked of making Iraq pay for this on 9/12. Pearle says he was in Paris at the time, and Tenet was forced to recant) which wouldn't take away from what he says otherwise except that, this guy is a self contradiction that wears shoes. He spins the story to however best fits his own agenda and the facts be damned, all the while he says that the Intelligence Community has a primary connection with the truth. When he has all the time in the world and makes mistakes like that (the Pearle timeline) it doesn't speak well for his having a meticulous nature.

Bush lied… Blaaa blaaa bllaaaa…



The man is gone… The dems are so sorry. The debate was for VP and maybe Obama won?



Either way the black vote is democratic, so maybe the’ll go with someone from the south. Ohh wait, SC don’t like the lawer John Edwards.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Ok so over this past week, there have been a couple of TV items that caught my eye.

The first was a Bill Moyers report on how the White House lied us into the war in Iraq. [/quote]

Yep, when I want straight, objective fact, I head to Bill Moyers.... and the "lies" part... that fiction never grows old....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Turns out the Knight Ridder had this story from the get go and knew that the whole WMD/African Nukes/aluminum tubes line was hokum. But nobody listened, because they weren't a news presence in NYC or DC. [/quote]

Uh, yeah, sure....from Tenet's new book;

Page 324-325:

In early 2001, Iraq had been caught trying to clandestinely procure sixty thousand high-strength aluminum tubes manufactured to extraordinary tight tolerances. The tubes were seized in the Middle East. The Iraqi agent tried in vain to get the tubes released, claiming they were to be used in Lebanon to make race car components. Whatever their intended use, under UN sanctions, Saddam was prohibited from acquiring the tubes for any purpose. All agencies agreed that these tubes could be modified to make centrifuge rotors used in a nuclear program. CIA analysts believed that these tubes were intended for the enrichment of uranium. Others thought they were intended to make rockets. To test the theory, CIA brought together a “red team” of highly experienced experts from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory—people who had actually built centrifuges. Their assessment was that the tubes were more suited for nuclear use than for anything else. The Department of Energy’s representative at the NFIB delivered his agency’s assessment that the tubes were probably not part of a nuclear program. He was not a technical expert, however, and, despite being given several opportunities, he was unable to explain the basis of his department’s view in anything approaching a convincing manner.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Second program is the Tenet tour. ......I said, this is a capital case, people are going to die because of this, you couldn't send a single man to the chair based on that evidence, and yet you are going to kill tens of thousands? [/quote]

Funny you should mention that. Again, from Tenent's book;

(page 316):

In his VFW speech, the vice president reminded the audience that during the first Gulf war, the intelligence community underestimated Iraq’s progress toward building a nuclear weapon. No doubt that experience had colored the vice president’s view of U.S. intelligence gathering ever since, but it also had a profound impact on my views and those of many of our analysts. Given Saddam’s proclivity for deception and denial, we, too, were haunted by the possibility that there was more going on than we could detect.

 

Page 336:

The intelligence reports and analysis used over the years on the WMD issue, and repeated in the NIE, were flawed, but the intelligence process was not disingenuous nor was it influenced by politics. Intelligence professionals did not try to tell policy makers what they wanted to hear, nor did the policy makers lean on us to influence outcomes. The consistency of our views on these weapons programs was carried forward to two presidents of different political parties who pursued vastly different courses of action.

(page 328):

The absence of evidence and linear thinking, and Iraq’s extensive efforts to conceal illicit procurement of proscribed components, told us that a deceptive regime could and would easily surprise us. It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.

Now, you might claim that you were "right" about Saddam not having WMD (although how you reached that conclusion would be interesting to review), but it hardly makes sense that you claim to be "right" about the standard of evidence used, considering the dire implications for us all if you were wrong about Saddam/WMDs. It seems to me the standard of a capital case, given Saddam's history and the threat he could be reasonable expected to present, just isn't applicable.

He is reported thus.... "also charged today that he had been the victim of “orchestrated leaks of false, misleading, incomplete and personal information” that were “part of a conscious campaign to undermine my effectiveness as president.”

His lawyer is Bob Bennet! Who is he?

"Bill Clinton?"

No, I'm sorry, the correctER answer is Paul Wolfowitz.

Come on, that's funny, Ha ha AND peculiar!

I didn't read the above post. I'll get to it. Having not seen any of it except knowing that it is from Mikebutler222, I want you all to know that I will go into it with an open mind, expecting to find common ground for agreement and harmony.

Well, Mikebutler222, the point is that Tenet himself said that his evidence might have been strong enough for a civil case, but did not approach the standard for a criminal (not sure if he said capital or not) case.

Please keep in mind, the choice was not ever "Now or Never!" The rest of the civilized world (with few exceptions) said 'Let's let the inspectors do their job and when we see that there is really a threat, we're with you, but not until then.' How would that have been so terrible? It would have been terrible because it would have taken away our justification for a war they wanted to get into anyway.

I think that Tenet's point (one of them) was that this administration was going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what Tenet said. 

As far as my thought process. Ok, I didn't know anything. Fine.

I thought I could tell when they were lying, turns out, I was right, I could tell.

Here's a link to the transcript, http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/transcript1.html

Here's a link to the program on line: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/video_popups/pop_vid_btw1- 1.html

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Well, Mikebutler222, the point is that Tenet himself said that his evidence might have been strong enough for a civil case, but did not approach the standard for a criminal (not sure if he said capital or not) case. [/quote]

It doesn't much matter, as Tenet also said, being surprised was the fear.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Please keep in mind, the choice was not ever "Now or Never!" The rest of the civilized world (with few exceptions) said 'Let's let the inspectors do their job and when we see that there is really a threat, we're with you, but not until then.' [/quote]

Which would have made sense, if Saddam hadn't already interfered for 11 years with the open and free inspections he had promised. There simply was not reason to trust him and the stakes for being fooled by him was too high. His massive document dump at the 11th hour was the final straw.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]I think that Tenet's point (one of them) was that this administration was going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what Tenet said. [/quote]

I know that's the mantra, but these comments by Tenet cause plenty of doubt of the "regardless" theory;

Page 336:

The intelligence reports and analysis used over the years on the WMD issue, and repeated in the NIE, were flawed, but the intelligence process was not disingenuous nor was it influenced by politics. Intelligence professionals did not try to tell policy makers what they wanted to hear, nor did the policy makers lean on us to influence outcomes. The consistency of our views on these weapons programs was carried forward to two presidents of different political parties who pursued vastly different courses of action.

(page 328):

The absence of evidence and linear thinking, and Iraq’s extensive efforts to conceal illicit procurement of proscribed components, told us that a deceptive regime could and would easily surprise us. It was never a question of a known, imminent threat; it was about an unwillingness to risk surprise.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As far as my thought process. Ok, I didn't know anything. Fine.

I thought I could tell when they were lying, turns out, I was right, I could tell. [/quote]

There's that "lying" thing again...a claim ften repeated, but never supported...

And please, Bill Moyers? Really?