"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, September 13, 2008

Gentlemen, why not call them what they are: LIES
Posted by Jill | 6:02 AM
Why can't the press use the "L" word? Is it because John McCain was a POW and therefore gets a pass on being a baldfaced, craven, pandering liar? Because if that's not the reason, if they're just being too "delicate" to say that perhaps the Senator from Arizona is "confused" or "muddy in the memory", they might have to say he's too senile to be president.

But in today's New York Times, two of the papers hacks di tutti hacks, Michael Cooper and Jim Rutenberg, write about the "outcry" over the McCain campaign's "distortions" -- as if defending yourself against outright lies and attacks were, to use Phil Gramm's favorite word, "whining", while holding Sarah Palin up like a human shield the way Martin Sheen's Greg Stillson character in The Dead Zone held up a baby and screaming "SEXISM!!" any time anyone criticizes her for any of her ignorance and hypocrisy:
Harsh advertisements and negative attacks are a staple of presidential campaigns, but Senator John McCain has drawn an avalanche of criticism this week from Democrats, independent groups and even some Republicans for regularly stretching the truth in attacking Senator Barack Obama’s record and positions.


No, you morons, it's not "stretching the truth." Stretching the truth means there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere. It's called lying. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "lie" as:

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

So, Messrs. Cooper, and Rutenberg, why is this so difficult for you to understand? And why not use the word?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, August 18, 2008

Excuse me, Senator McCain, but your pants on fire -- and your having been a POW is immaterial
Posted by Jill | 10:51 AM
I sometimes wonder how other Vietnam veterans who were prisoners of war feel about John McCain's view that he is entitled to a free pass on every sleazy thing he's ever done just because he was a POW.

So it turns out that rather than being in a "cone of silence" at the Saddleback Church on Saturday night while Barack Obama was being asked the same questions that would soon be posed to him, John McCain was in his motorcade, in all likelihood listening to said questions:

Senator John McCain was not in a “cone of silence” on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California.

Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”

The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama’s hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain’s performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.

Nicolle Wallace, a spokeswoman for Mr. McCain, said on Sunday night that Mr. McCain had not heard the broadcast of the event while in his motorcade and heard none of the questions.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.


Uh, Ms. Wallace? Can you please explain what John McCain having been a prisoner of war has to do with whether he had advance notification of the questions? And don't you think that the word "cheated" is kind of a peculiar one about which to be outraged, given the Senator's marital history?

And as for the "insinuation" that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated, well, then, how do you explain your campaign's hysterical response to the idea that the Senator may have heard the questions in advance? Don't you think you're overreacting just a bit?

Perhaps you're a touch hypersensitive because your guy has already been busted for plagiarizing Alexander Solzhenytsin, in addition to his various lies about his record.

So yes, Ms. Wallace, we are accusing John McCain of cheating. And lying, and of being corrupt. Go prove us wrong.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Same as the old boss, etc.
Posted by Jill | 7:01 AM
Alberto Gonzales isn't the only one who's lied in front of Congress. If George W. Bush names Michael Chertoff as the new Attorney General, we'll have another liar on our hands as the chief law enforcement official in the country:

Since rumors of Gonzales' departure surfaced last week, speculation about his successor has centered on Michael Chertoff, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Just as Gonzales, under oath before Congress, failed to recall whether there was dissension within the Bush administration over a controversial war-on-terror-related policy, so Michael Chertoff seems to have suffered a similar lapse of memory while under oath before Congress when pressed on a different terror-related policy. Gonzales pleaded ignorance of a rift within the administration over warrantless wiretapping; Chertoff has denied knowledge of interrogation techniques that are tantamount to torture, despite regular attendance by his top aides at meetings on the subject.

[snip]

When Chertoff appeared before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Feb. 2, 2005, the subject was not interrogations. The panel was weighing Chertoff's nomination to his current post as secretary of homeland security. He was promptly confronted on the topic, however, by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Levin's staff had dug up copies of curious FBI e-mail traffic about interrogations at the Guantánamo prison in 2002 and 2003, when Chertoff was head of the criminal division at the Department of Justice.

That was a pivotal year at the military prison. The Pentagon was institutionalizing a brutal interrogation program approved by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Interrogation teams at the prison employed forced nudity, sleep deprivation, isolation and sexual humiliation, among other tactics. During that time, for example, a detainee named Mohammed al-Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, to wear women's underwear, and to perform "dog tricks" on a leash. He was interrogated for 18 to 20 hours on 48 out of 54 consecutive days.

FBI interrogators assigned to Guantánamo had balked at the methods employed by the DOD. Given its long institutional knowledge about legal and effective interrogations, the FBI thought the military interrogations were extremely problematic. E-mail strings documenting the FBI's objections have been well publicized.

At the February 2005 hearing, Levin questioned Chertoff about an e-mail obtained by Levin's staff: a May 10, 2004, communication from one FBI official, with the name redacted, to another FBI official, T.J. Harrington. The e-mail rehashes the FBI objections to the military interrogations at Guantánamo back in 2002.

That FBI e-mail discusses the bureau's concerns at some length. It also divulges weekly meetings with officials from the Justice Department's criminal division, in which "we often discussed DOD techniques and how they were not effective or producing intel that was reliable." Chertoff was the head of the DOJ's criminal division from 2001 until the spring of 2003. The e-mail says that four people from the department's criminal division attended those meetings and that those attendees "all agreed DOD tactics were going to be an issue" if the government tried to prosecute Guantánamo prisoners. In the copy of the e-mail obtained by Levin, the names of those four criminal division officials had been redacted.

Under questioning from Levin that day in 2005, Chertoff disavowed any knowledge of abusive interrogation techniques being employed at Guantánamo and said he was unaware of those meetings. "I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of Justice that there were practices at Guantánamo, if there were practices at Guantánamo, that would be torture or anything even approaching torture," Chertoff told Levin. He told the committee he was unaware of "any use of techniques in Guantánamo that were anything other than what I would describe as kind of plain vanilla ... I do not know what the meetings being referred to are, what the techniques are being referred to, and who the people are."

[snip]

A month later, after pressuring the Justice Department, Levin obtained another version of the same FBI e-mail describing meetings about torture. It still contained redactions, but it does list the names of the DOJ criminal division officials who attended the meetings with the FBI. One of them was Alice Fisher, Chertoff's top deputy. Chertoff's counsel, David Nahmias, also attended, as did two other senior criminal division officials, Bruce Swartz and Laura Parsky. Swartz, the e-mail showed, had relayed the FBI's concerns to the Defense Department's Office of the General Counsel. (The e-mail is reproduced on page 2 of this article.)

If some of Chertoff's top staff were involved in weekly meetings in which "the DOD techniques" were discussed, it remains unclear how he could be totally unaware of any of those discussions. "The secretary always testifies truthfully," said Laura Keehner, a DHS spokeswoman.

Other close observers of these developments are not so sure. "Either he lied to Congress or he is a very out-of-the-loop manager of the division," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director of the ACLU. "It smacks of Alberto Gonzales saying he did not know anything about these U.S. attorney firings."


Exactly. If we've managed to get rid of Gonzo, but the result is another liar and dissembler in this position, we've gained nothing. When the hearings start, watch for Joe Biden to say something along the lines of "I like you...you're the real deal." When you do, you'll know the fix is in.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share