- Mar 27, 2012
- 15,280
- 6,326
- 390
Say What? 
Ace is on fire today. He does a good job of breaking down the lies by the dimocraps.
What the dims are doing is really pretty simple.... They're confusing the issue. On purpose.
Check these two pieces out.
Once Again, the Democrat Partisans of the Media Pivot Their Defense From "It's Not True and You're Crazy to Believe It's True" to "Of Course It's True, and You're Crazy to Make Such a Big Deal About It"
Ace of Spades HQ
We saw this script change in the case of Bill Clinton, after the revelation of the Blue Dress.
We saw this script change much more recently in the case of Obama's "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance lie," when the script flipped from "You're stupid and crazy to doubt Obama" to "Of course you can't keep your insurance, that's at the heart of the program's cost-control measures; you're stupid and crazy to have not realized this sooner!"
And now reliably thoughtless yabbering baboon Donnie Deutsch executes the pivot on Benghazi.
For eighteen months the line from Obama -- and therefore the line from the White House's communications shops at ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN -- has been that Obama was not a "political animal," and certainly not on a matter of national security.
Now that the Blue Dress Proof of the emails are released, the defense changes to "Of course, this is all obvious, how stupid are you are for dwelling on obvious things."
The Other Defense... suggested by Deutsch (and coming soon from the mouths of every other braindead hack on TV and in print) is that this is such a minor political maneuver -- you know, "Everybody Does It."
Well let's examine that. If this is a very minor transgression, as Deutsch posits, that means that Obama has lied to the entire nation and corrupted its press (to the extent such a thing is further possible) in order to cover up a very minor transgression.
One may understand when a man lies over something extremely consequential. A normal man would do that (a highly ethical man might not, but a normal man would), and would not be branded a habitual liar.
But if a man also lies about inconsequential matters --as Deutsch assures us this is -- then that man is in fact a casual liar, equally given to lying about matters large and small, not discriminating among the profound and trivial, because his preferred mode of expression -- his natural, unthinking mode of expression -- is simply to lie.
So: Is that what is is, then, Donnie?
Edge:
This one is the better of the two, IMHO
Bizarre: CBS Employee Confesses That Ben Rhodes Email Proves It Was the White House Which Inserted the False Narrative About the Internet Video Into the Benghazi Narrative, and Yet Claims There's Nothing to See Here
—Ace
As I was just saying: The script gets flipped from "You're stupid to accuse Obama of something he could never, ever do" to "You're stupid to make a big deal out of something Obama obviously would always do."
John Dickerson goes into Ben Smith/Dave Weigel mode to Voxsplain to you why something he later concedes is a smoking gun isn't a smoking gun at all.
Here's his conclusion. The part before this excerpt concerned Carney's amazing claim as to why this email wasn't released when Congress subpoenaed all emails on Benghazi -- that this email wasn't about Benghazi.
Note the way he says that so off-handedly, as if this is a trivial thing. "Condemnation all around." Yes, the White House lied, so now we in the press will finally admit it; condemnation all around, and now let's MoveOn.org.
Proof of a hot political dispute has been discovered, and John Dickerson's claim is There is no news here.
Indeed, that's how he begins his piece:
And that's his argument, that this is No Big Deal because, as George Costanza observed, "It's not a lie if you believe it."
He claims that the White House believed that the Youtube Video really cause the spontaneous highly-coordinated attack. He concedes that belief is false, of course, but that the White House convinced itself of a self-pleasing deception, and Serious You Guys, who doesn't do that?
Condemnation all around.
However, Dickerson de-emphasizes the actual story here in order to offer his Fake but Honestly Believed defense.
The story here is that the White House has been always been culpable for cooking up this Internet Video excuse and foisting this lie on the public.
He is conflating two entirely different falsehoods:
1. That the YouTube Video caused a highly-coordinated attack to "spontaneously evolve." The White House could, possibly, deceive itself into thinking this.
2. That it was other agencies and not the White House which inserted the false narrative about the YouTube into the Talking Points. The White House could not conceivably deceive themselves into thinking this is true, as people generally know the things they themselves did.
But Dickerson deliberately conflates the two, and suggests that because the White House might have stupidly, childishly told itself a fairy-tale about how Benghazi happened, then maybe their deception as to who foisted this fairy-tale on the public can also be excused as an innocent (albeit infantile) self deception.
No.
Just, no.
The White House lied about its role here for eighteen months, always claiming it was other agencies who made these changes, and that the White House only requested the changing of a single word.
They hid emails that would contradict that narrative.
This is now proven.
So does John Dickerson's "They believed it" defense also apply to these lies? When they repeatedly lied to the public about who had inserted the Youtube Video narrative into the talking points, did they believe that?
Dickerson deliberately conflates two false claims: That the Youtube Video was responsible for spontaneous protests that evolved into an attack, and that the White House had nothing to do with inserting this false narrative into the national consequence.
These are two separate misrepresentations -- and the White House could only have plausibly deceived itself into believing one of them.
And, by the way, I doubt that too, and I also would say that, even if it were true in this case, an administration's capacity for believing things which are in its interest to believe but which are also obviously not true is not the sterling defense Dickerson imagines it to be. I happen to think this administration tells itself a lot of stupid lies -- about its competency, about its integrity, about the effects of its policies on America.
The only thing the Obama Administration is more committed to than leftist ideology is its extremely high self-regard. That too should be a major story; or should we just say of it, "Condemnation all around"?
It is not plausible they also deceived themselves into thinking it was the FBI or CIA which inserted the Youtube Video narrative into the talking points when they themselves did it.
That's a straight-up lie, and a conscious, deliberate one. It's not a case of innocent "self-deception" as Dickerson avers.
How could Dickerson confuse two such obviously different matters such that a defense that can only plausibly attach to one is instead used for both?
Well how about this possibility: Maybe Dickerson is also guilty of allowing a little political and career self-interest lead him into some understandable self-deception:
As Dickerson is assuring me that "self-deception" convincing oneself of a self-interested narrative is very common and completely excusable, I hope he won't be too offended when I suggest that perhaps this very common, completely excusable defect might be affecting him as well.
The administration lied to the public for 18 months, and the media, almost to a man, covered up and amplified their lies for them.
And now that proof of this is obtained, the media can only say: Condemnation all around.
Boys will be boys, you know? Such rascals.
Why the darling little rogues are guilty of little more than a bit of juvenile high-spiritedness.
That is a telling thing. Because people say that sort of thing about their own precious children.
About other people's children's misbehaviors, they take far greater umbrage.
But of their own beloved rapscallions' misadventures, they just shrug and say, "Boys will be boys."
I think the media is pretty much screaming at this point that they consider the Obama Kidz to be Mommy's Little Angels.
Unlike those horrible misbehaved neighbor-kids, the Republicans.
Edge:
Pathological liars. ALL of them. Including their toadies in here
Ace is on fire today. He does a good job of breaking down the lies by the dimocraps.
What the dims are doing is really pretty simple.... They're confusing the issue. On purpose.
Check these two pieces out.
Once Again, the Democrat Partisans of the Media Pivot Their Defense From "It's Not True and You're Crazy to Believe It's True" to "Of Course It's True, and You're Crazy to Make Such a Big Deal About It"
Ace of Spades HQ
We saw this script change in the case of Bill Clinton, after the revelation of the Blue Dress.
We saw this script change much more recently in the case of Obama's "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance lie," when the script flipped from "You're stupid and crazy to doubt Obama" to "Of course you can't keep your insurance, that's at the heart of the program's cost-control measures; you're stupid and crazy to have not realized this sooner!"
And now reliably thoughtless yabbering baboon Donnie Deutsch executes the pivot on Benghazi.
So Scarborough says "we all know they're lying," and Deutsch finally -- finally -- does not dispute that, but instead chooses to recharacterize the acts of serial lying and cover-up as just some understandable political-animal crisis management.
For eighteen months the line from Obama -- and therefore the line from the White House's communications shops at ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN -- has been that Obama was not a "political animal," and certainly not on a matter of national security.
Now that the Blue Dress Proof of the emails are released, the defense changes to "Of course, this is all obvious, how stupid are you are for dwelling on obvious things."
The Other Defense... suggested by Deutsch (and coming soon from the mouths of every other braindead hack on TV and in print) is that this is such a minor political maneuver -- you know, "Everybody Does It."
Well let's examine that. If this is a very minor transgression, as Deutsch posits, that means that Obama has lied to the entire nation and corrupted its press (to the extent such a thing is further possible) in order to cover up a very minor transgression.
One may understand when a man lies over something extremely consequential. A normal man would do that (a highly ethical man might not, but a normal man would), and would not be branded a habitual liar.
But if a man also lies about inconsequential matters --as Deutsch assures us this is -- then that man is in fact a casual liar, equally given to lying about matters large and small, not discriminating among the profound and trivial, because his preferred mode of expression -- his natural, unthinking mode of expression -- is simply to lie.
So: Is that what is is, then, Donnie?
Edge:
This one is the better of the two, IMHO
Bizarre: CBS Employee Confesses That Ben Rhodes Email Proves It Was the White House Which Inserted the False Narrative About the Internet Video Into the Benghazi Narrative, and Yet Claims There's Nothing to See Here
—Ace
As I was just saying: The script gets flipped from "You're stupid to accuse Obama of something he could never, ever do" to "You're stupid to make a big deal out of something Obama obviously would always do."
John Dickerson goes into Ben Smith/Dave Weigel mode to Voxsplain to you why something he later concedes is a smoking gun isn't a smoking gun at all.
Here's his conclusion. The part before this excerpt concerned Carney's amazing claim as to why this email wasn't released when Congress subpoenaed all emails on Benghazi -- that this email wasn't about Benghazi.
Note the way he says that so off-handedly, as if this is a trivial thing. "Condemnation all around." Yes, the White House lied, so now we in the press will finally admit it; condemnation all around, and now let's MoveOn.org.
Proof of a hot political dispute has been discovered, and John Dickerson's claim is There is no news here.
Indeed, that's how he begins his piece:
And that's his argument, that this is No Big Deal because, as George Costanza observed, "It's not a lie if you believe it."
He claims that the White House believed that the Youtube Video really cause the spontaneous highly-coordinated attack. He concedes that belief is false, of course, but that the White House convinced itself of a self-pleasing deception, and Serious You Guys, who doesn't do that?
Condemnation all around.
However, Dickerson de-emphasizes the actual story here in order to offer his Fake but Honestly Believed defense.
The story here is that the White House has been always been culpable for cooking up this Internet Video excuse and foisting this lie on the public.
He is conflating two entirely different falsehoods:
1. That the YouTube Video caused a highly-coordinated attack to "spontaneously evolve." The White House could, possibly, deceive itself into thinking this.
2. That it was other agencies and not the White House which inserted the false narrative about the YouTube into the Talking Points. The White House could not conceivably deceive themselves into thinking this is true, as people generally know the things they themselves did.
But Dickerson deliberately conflates the two, and suggests that because the White House might have stupidly, childishly told itself a fairy-tale about how Benghazi happened, then maybe their deception as to who foisted this fairy-tale on the public can also be excused as an innocent (albeit infantile) self deception.
No.
Just, no.
The White House lied about its role here for eighteen months, always claiming it was other agencies who made these changes, and that the White House only requested the changing of a single word.
They hid emails that would contradict that narrative.
This is now proven.
So does John Dickerson's "They believed it" defense also apply to these lies? When they repeatedly lied to the public about who had inserted the Youtube Video narrative into the talking points, did they believe that?
Dickerson deliberately conflates two false claims: That the Youtube Video was responsible for spontaneous protests that evolved into an attack, and that the White House had nothing to do with inserting this false narrative into the national consequence.
These are two separate misrepresentations -- and the White House could only have plausibly deceived itself into believing one of them.
And, by the way, I doubt that too, and I also would say that, even if it were true in this case, an administration's capacity for believing things which are in its interest to believe but which are also obviously not true is not the sterling defense Dickerson imagines it to be. I happen to think this administration tells itself a lot of stupid lies -- about its competency, about its integrity, about the effects of its policies on America.
The only thing the Obama Administration is more committed to than leftist ideology is its extremely high self-regard. That too should be a major story; or should we just say of it, "Condemnation all around"?
It is not plausible they also deceived themselves into thinking it was the FBI or CIA which inserted the Youtube Video narrative into the talking points when they themselves did it.
That's a straight-up lie, and a conscious, deliberate one. It's not a case of innocent "self-deception" as Dickerson avers.
How could Dickerson confuse two such obviously different matters such that a defense that can only plausibly attach to one is instead used for both?
Well how about this possibility: Maybe Dickerson is also guilty of allowing a little political and career self-interest lead him into some understandable self-deception:
As Dickerson is assuring me that "self-deception" convincing oneself of a self-interested narrative is very common and completely excusable, I hope he won't be too offended when I suggest that perhaps this very common, completely excusable defect might be affecting him as well.
The administration lied to the public for 18 months, and the media, almost to a man, covered up and amplified their lies for them.
And now that proof of this is obtained, the media can only say: Condemnation all around.
Boys will be boys, you know? Such rascals.
Why the darling little rogues are guilty of little more than a bit of juvenile high-spiritedness.
That is a telling thing. Because people say that sort of thing about their own precious children.
About other people's children's misbehaviors, they take far greater umbrage.
But of their own beloved rapscallions' misadventures, they just shrug and say, "Boys will be boys."
I think the media is pretty much screaming at this point that they consider the Obama Kidz to be Mommy's Little Angels.
Unlike those horrible misbehaved neighbor-kids, the Republicans.
Edge:
Pathological liars. ALL of them. Including their toadies in here
Last edited:
