Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
Plenty of links for those interested in attending. One would think the FBI would be interested, but they are already going. 
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190315.php
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Your Tax Dollars At Work
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
Plenty of links for those interested in attending. One would think the FBI would be interested, but they are already going. http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190315.php
indago
VIP Member
- Oct 27, 2007
- 1,114
- 109
- 85
See how they lie...
MSNBC COUNTDOWN 30 November 2007
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: And, in our third example, you may remember the lie that Karl Rove told to Charlie Rose, like Rice, shifting blame for Iraq elsewhere, astonishingly to the Democratic Senate from 2002.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARL ROVE, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: One of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002?
CHARLIE ROSE, PBS ANCHOR: Why?
ROVE: This administration was opposed to it. I'm going to talk about that in my book.
ROSE: Tell me. Give me something.
ROVE: No, no.
ROSE: Give me something.
ROVE: I just did. I told you the administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002.
ROSE: Because?
ROVE: We didn't think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up in a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along potential allies abroad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: We showed you here proof of Rove's dishonesty from the White House website, but the White House itself never weighed in. Only today, when asked point blank about it, did Mr. Bush's former chief of staff confirm Rove's dishonesty, in a manner suggesting the administration lies about a war that has killed and maimed thousands of Americans, constituted a joke.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE SCARBOROUGH, "MORNING JOE": Karl Rove went on Charlie Rose and he blamed the Democrats for pushing him and the president into war. Is that how it worked?
ANDREW CARD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: No, that is not the way it worked.
SCARBOROUGH: What the heck? Seriously, what the hell was that about?
CARD: The Democrats have pushed us into a lot of stupid things, but they didn't push us into war.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, yes. You worked with Karl. Is that Karl spinning beyond the White House?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Spinning out of control?
CARD: Karl is very smart and he's sometimes his brain gets ahead of his mouth. And sometimes his mouth gets ahead of his brain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: And sometimes neither of them works. Let's turn now to MSNBC's political analyst Laurence O'Donnell, also a contributor to HuffingtonPost.com. Good evening to you, sir.
LAURENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to be with you, Keith.
OLBERMANN: If the White House and Card knew that Rove had lied on national TV in such an audacious way about the White House, about the war, why wouldn't they correct the record at the time or maybe the next day?
O'DONNELL: I think from the White House perspective, Rove no longer works there. He is not our responsibility. But really, Keith, it's hard to think of a president like this. It's hard to think of someone of a high position in the White House being out of the White House for a few months and then saying things that everyone knows are completely false. I mean, no one from the Nixon administration came out and said, oh, gee, the Democrats forced us to break into their campaign headquarters.
It's just the strangest thing. I think the White House was probably as shocked by Rove's audacity as all the rest of us were. You know, the only defense you could come up with for Rove, other than lying, is that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean, that's the most honorable defense. He was not in any of the National Security Council meetings leading up to the war. He wasn't really a player at all in the decision making leading up to the war.
It's very clear from the accounts of those meetings in Bob Woodward's books and other accounts of how this proceeded that the White House was, in fact, very eager to get this done at a certain point in the calendar, and the Democrats in no way, no conceivable way, added any urgency to what became George W. Bush's mission in Iraq, and when to start that mission.
OLBERMANN: The second part of this, though, is not just What rove said, but what Card said today, this explanation that he was merely blabbing something faster than he could think about it. I mean, that's nonsense on the face of it, because Rove specifically said it is something he had already decided to write about in his book. And it's conceivable it just came to his head at some point, and now he is trying to rationalize it and put together something that explains what he said on the show or what happened five years ago. But, clearly, either way, Card's answer does not explain Rove's answer. And you've got the question is why would Card replace one lie with another one?
O'DONNELL: You know, Andy Card worked with him. They're sort of friends. But not really. Card did flatly contradict him. He's not going to find the most negative language he can come up with to contradict him. But Rove people who worked with Rove in the White House, there is a lot of negative opinion about Rove from people who worked with him in the White House. And that opinion now is much more available off the record now that Rove is out of there.
I've heard a lot of stuff from people over the last couple months and more this week about how this is typical Karl stuff. This is he did a lot of this in the White House, hip shooting. And not just in this, but in predicting election outcomes that were wrong in 2006. He really did tell those people in the White House in 2006 that we really are going to win this Congressional election. And so they're not the White House, I don't think, thinks of Karl as being one of their big sources of truth.
They think of him as a spinner. They think of him the way Democrats think about James Carville. I don't mean to suggest that Carville was ever dragged in front of Grand Juries the way Rove has been because of his problems with the truth, but that these guys are spinners. They're not the people you turn to for honest opinions or honest frames on anything.
MSNBC COUNTDOWN 30 November 2007
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: And, in our third example, you may remember the lie that Karl Rove told to Charlie Rose, like Rice, shifting blame for Iraq elsewhere, astonishingly to the Democratic Senate from 2002.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARL ROVE, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER: One of the untold stories about the war is why did the United States Congress, the United States Senate, vote on the war resolution in the fall of 2002?
CHARLIE ROSE, PBS ANCHOR: Why?
ROVE: This administration was opposed to it. I'm going to talk about that in my book.
ROSE: Tell me. Give me something.
ROVE: No, no.
ROSE: Give me something.
ROVE: I just did. I told you the administration was opposed to voting on it in the fall of 2002.
ROSE: Because?
ROVE: We didn't think it belonged within the confines of the election. There was an election coming up in a matter of weeks. We thought it made it too political. We wanted it outside the confines of it. It seemed to make things move too fast. There were things that needed to be done to bring along potential allies abroad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: We showed you here proof of Rove's dishonesty from the White House website, but the White House itself never weighed in. Only today, when asked point blank about it, did Mr. Bush's former chief of staff confirm Rove's dishonesty, in a manner suggesting the administration lies about a war that has killed and maimed thousands of Americans, constituted a joke.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE SCARBOROUGH, "MORNING JOE": Karl Rove went on Charlie Rose and he blamed the Democrats for pushing him and the president into war. Is that how it worked?
ANDREW CARD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: No, that is not the way it worked.
SCARBOROUGH: What the heck? Seriously, what the hell was that about?
CARD: The Democrats have pushed us into a lot of stupid things, but they didn't push us into war.
SCARBOROUGH: Yes, yes. You worked with Karl. Is that Karl spinning beyond the White House?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Spinning out of control?
CARD: Karl is very smart and he's sometimes his brain gets ahead of his mouth. And sometimes his mouth gets ahead of his brain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: And sometimes neither of them works. Let's turn now to MSNBC's political analyst Laurence O'Donnell, also a contributor to HuffingtonPost.com. Good evening to you, sir.
LAURENCE O'DONNELL, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to be with you, Keith.
OLBERMANN: If the White House and Card knew that Rove had lied on national TV in such an audacious way about the White House, about the war, why wouldn't they correct the record at the time or maybe the next day?
O'DONNELL: I think from the White House perspective, Rove no longer works there. He is not our responsibility. But really, Keith, it's hard to think of a president like this. It's hard to think of someone of a high position in the White House being out of the White House for a few months and then saying things that everyone knows are completely false. I mean, no one from the Nixon administration came out and said, oh, gee, the Democrats forced us to break into their campaign headquarters.
It's just the strangest thing. I think the White House was probably as shocked by Rove's audacity as all the rest of us were. You know, the only defense you could come up with for Rove, other than lying, is that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean, that's the most honorable defense. He was not in any of the National Security Council meetings leading up to the war. He wasn't really a player at all in the decision making leading up to the war.
It's very clear from the accounts of those meetings in Bob Woodward's books and other accounts of how this proceeded that the White House was, in fact, very eager to get this done at a certain point in the calendar, and the Democrats in no way, no conceivable way, added any urgency to what became George W. Bush's mission in Iraq, and when to start that mission.
OLBERMANN: The second part of this, though, is not just What rove said, but what Card said today, this explanation that he was merely blabbing something faster than he could think about it. I mean, that's nonsense on the face of it, because Rove specifically said it is something he had already decided to write about in his book. And it's conceivable it just came to his head at some point, and now he is trying to rationalize it and put together something that explains what he said on the show or what happened five years ago. But, clearly, either way, Card's answer does not explain Rove's answer. And you've got the question is why would Card replace one lie with another one?
O'DONNELL: You know, Andy Card worked with him. They're sort of friends. But not really. Card did flatly contradict him. He's not going to find the most negative language he can come up with to contradict him. But Rove people who worked with Rove in the White House, there is a lot of negative opinion about Rove from people who worked with him in the White House. And that opinion now is much more available off the record now that Rove is out of there.
I've heard a lot of stuff from people over the last couple months and more this week about how this is typical Karl stuff. This is he did a lot of this in the White House, hip shooting. And not just in this, but in predicting election outcomes that were wrong in 2006. He really did tell those people in the White House in 2006 that we really are going to win this Congressional election. And so they're not the White House, I don't think, thinks of Karl as being one of their big sources of truth.
They think of him as a spinner. They think of him the way Democrats think about James Carville. I don't mean to suggest that Carville was ever dragged in front of Grand Juries the way Rove has been because of his problems with the truth, but that these guys are spinners. They're not the people you turn to for honest opinions or honest frames on anything.
indago
VIP Member
- Oct 27, 2007
- 1,114
- 109
- 85
See how they spin...
MSNBC COUNTDOWN 30 November 2007
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: For the congressman who's been a forthright opponent of the war in Iraq, it was another honest assessment from his point of view on conditions in Iraq. But for the Right wing it was a chance to paint him as a hypocrite and to renew fallacious charges that the Democrats are threatening to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq. Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: Congressman Jack Murtha says in essence the surge is working militarily but not working politically. The troops are doing their job but the Iraqi government is not its. Congressman Murtha's comments came after he returned from a trip last week to Iraq and other countries in the region. "I think the surge is working but that is only one element," he said in a teleconference to reporters in four cities. "It's working because of the increase in troops but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves."
And Murtha said in the same teleconference that the Iraqi central government was, quote, "Pretty close to dysfunctional" and that quote, "We can no longer afford to spend $14 billion a month on the war." But Right wing blogs called Murtha a hypocrite who now supports the surge and the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt did his part, presaging no doubt the disingenuously weighed argument to come, "With one of the Democrats' leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraq is working, it is difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding for our troops." This afternoon, Mr. Murtha said in a statement that quote, "The military surge has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government. Unfortunately the sacrifice of our troops has not been met by the Iraqi government." Let's bring in Jon Soltz, who served as an army captain in Iraq in 2003 and is currently the chair of Votevets.org. Jon, good evening.
JON SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: Thank you. How are you, Keith?
OLBERMANN: Congressman Murtha's office issued that statement part of which I just read as if to clarify something that had only been distorted by people who wanted to distort it. I mean, it hasn't it been clear even to supporters of the surge, supporters of the war, that there were two aspects to the surge, what would happen militarily and the opportunity and the mandate that it created for the Iraqis politically?
SOLTZ: Yes. I mean, obviously here, they're spinning Jack Murtha's thought. I mean, we learned very young as army officers when we study military strategy that according to Klasovich (ph) that war is politics by other means. And what we really need from the surge is a political success of Iraqi reconciliation and reconciliation across the Middle East. And look, this is no surprise when you put five combat brigades in Baghdad, 15,000 to 16,000 of the best fighting men and women in the world inside the, you know, the city streets of Baghdad, you're going to control terrain. I mean, they're the best in the world. That's what we expect. But we've seen no political progress. And you know, this is their ability to try to spin what Jack Murtha said, you know, the same what they use to Ken Pollack and Michael Hannalen (ph) statement when they came home, to try to support a surge that were basically declining anyway. I mean, First Calvary Division is pulling a brigade out of northern Iraq as we speak and did not replacing it. So, the surge is basically, is on the downside now and we see no political progress. And it is what it is.
OLBERMANN: First and last time that the credentials of Jack Murtha and Michael Hannalen, let alone has been considered close. If the surge, is as you pointed due in any way, the argument of the military success of it, it becomes less relevant, does it not? I mean, the focus should be how best do you deal with a government that hasn't come close to the kind of political reconciliation that's necessary?
SOLTZ: Well, in Kosonov and Bosnia and Haiti and many wars of this country, we use military force to create political leverage the threat of going in to get political reconciliation or the threat of going out to get political reconciliation. This administration has done neither, so it's a really you know, big problem and the point with the surge ending is twofold. One, the American army has been decimated by this administration. You know, when George Bush ran for president in 2004, he argued that we didn't need to increase the size of the army. When he became president in 2000, he wanted to go from ten combat divisions to eight. So, we have to pull these brigades out anyway, so, you know, there's nowhere else to go. And the second part of it is that this is a political strategy on behalf of the White House not to lose the war in Iraq but it's not a strategy to win the war in Iraq and that just not good enough when you have the best army in the world over there fighting. Because the president, he just doesn't want to loss but he has no strategy to win.
OLBERMANN: Yes, the point of expectations, Jon, I mean, the reaction to Murtha seems to be as if this was a final score, as if there were a surrender onboard the Missouri after World War II. Oh, boy. Murtha said the surge is working. Erase the rest of the sentence and that's it. That's all those who want this war want, is for somebody to say, yeah, we had a military success there or relative military success over the last three months by having a number of troops there.
SOLTZ: It's not the end all for the soldiers that are in Iraq or the American public that knows Osama Bin Laden the man who attacked this country on 9/11 is sitting in a country that's you know, about to fall apart and has a nuclear weapon in Pakistan. And that's a humungous, obvious concern here. For the Republicans and the president, this is the final straw for them. They're concerned about getting you know, clocked in the election next year, the Senate and the House Republicans with the loose seats in both sides and possibly the White House. So, for the president it is an end all. His only strategy here is to not lose which is to pump the football on the war in Iraq for the next president.
OLBERMANN: Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of Votevets.org. As always, Jon, great thanks, have a good weekend.
SOLTZ: Thanks for having me.
MSNBC COUNTDOWN 30 November 2007
KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: For the congressman who's been a forthright opponent of the war in Iraq, it was another honest assessment from his point of view on conditions in Iraq. But for the Right wing it was a chance to paint him as a hypocrite and to renew fallacious charges that the Democrats are threatening to cut off funds to the troops in Iraq. Our fourth story on the COUNTDOWN: Congressman Jack Murtha says in essence the surge is working militarily but not working politically. The troops are doing their job but the Iraqi government is not its. Congressman Murtha's comments came after he returned from a trip last week to Iraq and other countries in the region. "I think the surge is working but that is only one element," he said in a teleconference to reporters in four cities. "It's working because of the increase in troops but the thing that has to happen is that the Iraqis have to do this themselves."
And Murtha said in the same teleconference that the Iraqi central government was, quote, "Pretty close to dysfunctional" and that quote, "We can no longer afford to spend $14 billion a month on the war." But Right wing blogs called Murtha a hypocrite who now supports the surge and the House Republican whip, Roy Blunt did his part, presaging no doubt the disingenuously weighed argument to come, "With one of the Democrats' leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraq is working, it is difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding for our troops." This afternoon, Mr. Murtha said in a statement that quote, "The military surge has created a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government. Unfortunately the sacrifice of our troops has not been met by the Iraqi government." Let's bring in Jon Soltz, who served as an army captain in Iraq in 2003 and is currently the chair of Votevets.org. Jon, good evening.
JON SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: Thank you. How are you, Keith?
OLBERMANN: Congressman Murtha's office issued that statement part of which I just read as if to clarify something that had only been distorted by people who wanted to distort it. I mean, it hasn't it been clear even to supporters of the surge, supporters of the war, that there were two aspects to the surge, what would happen militarily and the opportunity and the mandate that it created for the Iraqis politically?
SOLTZ: Yes. I mean, obviously here, they're spinning Jack Murtha's thought. I mean, we learned very young as army officers when we study military strategy that according to Klasovich (ph) that war is politics by other means. And what we really need from the surge is a political success of Iraqi reconciliation and reconciliation across the Middle East. And look, this is no surprise when you put five combat brigades in Baghdad, 15,000 to 16,000 of the best fighting men and women in the world inside the, you know, the city streets of Baghdad, you're going to control terrain. I mean, they're the best in the world. That's what we expect. But we've seen no political progress. And you know, this is their ability to try to spin what Jack Murtha said, you know, the same what they use to Ken Pollack and Michael Hannalen (ph) statement when they came home, to try to support a surge that were basically declining anyway. I mean, First Calvary Division is pulling a brigade out of northern Iraq as we speak and did not replacing it. So, the surge is basically, is on the downside now and we see no political progress. And it is what it is.
OLBERMANN: First and last time that the credentials of Jack Murtha and Michael Hannalen, let alone has been considered close. If the surge, is as you pointed due in any way, the argument of the military success of it, it becomes less relevant, does it not? I mean, the focus should be how best do you deal with a government that hasn't come close to the kind of political reconciliation that's necessary?
SOLTZ: Well, in Kosonov and Bosnia and Haiti and many wars of this country, we use military force to create political leverage the threat of going in to get political reconciliation or the threat of going out to get political reconciliation. This administration has done neither, so it's a really you know, big problem and the point with the surge ending is twofold. One, the American army has been decimated by this administration. You know, when George Bush ran for president in 2004, he argued that we didn't need to increase the size of the army. When he became president in 2000, he wanted to go from ten combat divisions to eight. So, we have to pull these brigades out anyway, so, you know, there's nowhere else to go. And the second part of it is that this is a political strategy on behalf of the White House not to lose the war in Iraq but it's not a strategy to win the war in Iraq and that just not good enough when you have the best army in the world over there fighting. Because the president, he just doesn't want to loss but he has no strategy to win.
OLBERMANN: Yes, the point of expectations, Jon, I mean, the reaction to Murtha seems to be as if this was a final score, as if there were a surrender onboard the Missouri after World War II. Oh, boy. Murtha said the surge is working. Erase the rest of the sentence and that's it. That's all those who want this war want, is for somebody to say, yeah, we had a military success there or relative military success over the last three months by having a number of troops there.
SOLTZ: It's not the end all for the soldiers that are in Iraq or the American public that knows Osama Bin Laden the man who attacked this country on 9/11 is sitting in a country that's you know, about to fall apart and has a nuclear weapon in Pakistan. And that's a humungous, obvious concern here. For the Republicans and the president, this is the final straw for them. They're concerned about getting you know, clocked in the election next year, the Senate and the House Republicans with the loose seats in both sides and possibly the White House. So, for the president it is an end all. His only strategy here is to not lose which is to pump the football on the war in Iraq for the next president.
OLBERMANN: Jon Soltz, co-founder and chairman of Votevets.org. As always, Jon, great thanks, have a good weekend.
SOLTZ: Thanks for having me.
DeadCanDance
Senior Member
- May 29, 2007
- 1,414
- 127
- 48
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190315.php
I have no idea what your saying here. Its like a stream of conscience with you.
But, anyway, I get the gist of your article: Muslims are evil, we can't trust them, and we should monitor their every move. Even muslim-american citizens.
Well done.
Annie
Diamond Member
- Nov 22, 2003
- 50,848
- 4,828
- 1,790
- Thread starter
- #5
I have no idea what your saying here. Its like a stream of conscience with you.
But, anyway, I get the gist of your article: Muslims are evil, we can't trust them, and we should monitor their every move. Even muslim-american citizens.
Well done.
You have a problem with stream of consciousness?
I get your interpretation: Muslims are peace loving, get rid of the Jews...DeadCanDance
Senior Member
- May 29, 2007
- 1,414
- 127
- 48
You have a problem with stream of consciousness?
I like the vast, vast majority of muslims and jews I've ever met.
LordBrownTrout
Diamond Member
Geesh, just your good ol everday fashioned family fun.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 204
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 117
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 8
- Replies
- 21
- Views
- 148
- Replies
- 88
- Views
- 4K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 9256
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 497
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-