Beck: "Everything" being said about Fox News and me was said by Nixon admin. about Woodward and Bernstein
October 28, 2009 10:06 am ET
From the October 28 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
While making the comparison, Beck adds that he's not saying he's Woodward and Bernstein.
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
The problem is that almost everything Beck says about those he opposes is not true or accurate or fair.
Compare that to what Woodward and Bernstein reported, which was almost all true and sourced.
And there's the problem with what he says. He is comparing valid criticism with invalid criticism. Nixon went after W&B because they were threatening his administration by uncovering the truth. People go after Beck because he abuses the truth almost every time he speaks.
Axlerod & Emmanuel didn't go on other news networks and dis Fox News & suggest they too avoid Fox? The White House didn't try to keep Fox News out of the press pool for the conference with the Feinberg?
Yeah, your right- no problems here! That is of course unless you support free people & a free press.
I see no comments about the 1st paragraph-interesting. It's becuase it's the truth & the White House doesn't like anyone not towing th party line. Why else the Alxerod meet with Roger Ailes?
Again, please tell me how the Obama administration is preventing Fox from saying whatever it likes.
At this time they have not shut down Fox News or even talk radio for that matter don't be surprised if they don't as thing "progress". The diversity czar Mark Lloyd thinks the goverment needs to control the media & complements Hugo Chavez for the successful Democratic revolution that took place in Venezuela. It doesn't bother you that the White House tried to have Fox News removed from the press pool. Can yuo imagine if Bush tried that?
I'm answering you but you but you don't see it because it's not the response you want.
Nope. Sure didn't.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910230037
Right-wing Smear machine falls for fake Obama quote labeled as Satire
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/fake-obama-thesis-story-g_n_332255.html
Fake Obama Thesis Story Goes Viral, Because Of Stupidity
"Anita Dunn (not Jones) doesn't frequently look to Mao for her political philosophy".
It was intended as irony when she said it, and other conservatives have quoted Mao. She did not endorse Mao's actions and in fact talked about individualism.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910150044
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160001 (this one is about other conservatives quoting Mao.
"John Holdren didn't say he supports forced sterilization?"
Nope.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/right-wing-attacks-on-science-adviser-continue/
"Ron Bloom didn't say "we kinda agree with Mao power largely comes from the end of a gun?"
He was talking about the way of the world. He finished his remark with "if you want a friend, get a dog". Do you really think he was endorsing Mao's views? Just because you quote someone, it doesn't mean you endorse them.
And that's something that's been bugging me for a white: What exactly IS "white culture"?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0b5_1255207181
Couric was, in my view, too nice. She backed off once or twice when she could have really held his feet to the fire. She was probably right, though. The Becksters no doubt screamed, "ambush," and "unfair," but no rational person would by that. This is the first I've heard of that interview, embarrassing as that is to admit. Wish I'd seen it in real time and heard the fall-out.
So - I now spell it "White KKKulture."
I think that explains it.
Second, you completely miss the point. The he said the Nixon White House was saying the same things about Woodward and Bernstein then that the Obama Administration is saying about him now, for his looking into and asking questions about things that are proving to be highly embarrassing to him.
I realize no one ever gets called out for making false assertions and presumptions on here, but as a matter of pride, it would behoove you to do a little reading before you just say false stuff.
If Beck didn't have at least a few facts on his side, Van Jones would still be working for Obama and ACORN wouldn't have lost the temporary funding they did that the House and Senate voted overwhelming for doing....for now at least.
Read and learn, bintx.
This advice comes free of charge.
...as Beck proceeds to implicity compare himself to Woodward and Bernstein.
BTW, refresh my recollection, please...but wasn't it Glenn Beck who announced that he would take down this administration with the information he has uncovered?
And no, de didn't implicitly compare himself to Woodward and Bernstein. He was following along an article about him and stating what the misinformation being touted in the article was.
To find right PR guru, Beck looked to his left
I was listening to his program this morning on the way to work and I knew when he made that statement, even though he wasn't even talking about Woodward and Bernstein and he stated explicitly that he wasn't comparing himself to either one of them, that this would be the blog post here and around the rest of the nutroots. It's way too predictable.
And you guys just look at the headline and type away without even listening to the audio provided.
When a blogger tells you "We listen to Fox and Beck so you don't have to", it's the most condescending thing being popularly bandied about on the liberal blogs these days. Why do you want someone to watch and think for you? Watch it yourself and make up your own minds. It's like you're afraid that more people watch a certain station that won't read or watch anything else and feed on the misinformation.
You're afraid of that and the idea that you think FOX gets away with it disgusts you, but then you turn around and let blogs post partial newsclips and slanted videos to lead you to a conclusion they've already assertef for you. In short, you're doing exactly what you're afraid too many people in the center,the center-right and center-left and the right are doing.
Read and learn and think for yourself, IRONY 101.
BTW, I did listen to the audio before my original posting. And I stand by my comments.
You should read more...and learn.
Some folks have difficulty with critical thinking. I'm thinking that hoosier is one of them.
Then what what were the 'implict' comparisons to Woodward and Bernstein that Beck made? Were they before or after the explicit statement he made that he was not comparing himself to Woodward and Bernstein? Or were they both before AND after he stated that?
Please, do tell.
The only way Beck's analogy only makes sense is if he and FOX had uncovered illegal activities within the Obama administration...which is exactly what Beck repeatedly, but incorrectly, contends...either directly or implicitly. He is, in effect, comparing himself to Woodward and Bernstein who did, in fact, uncover illegal activity within the Nixon administration.
Like I said, critical thinking. Try it . . . it's really not that hard.
1. Beck is actually making the comparison that he's some sort of investigative journalist cut from the same cloth as woodward and burnstein. The clown is dreaming, spreading lies, exagerating the truth and making wide eyed accusations with no basis in reality is the exact opposite of investigative journalism.
2. At a minimum, Beck is a racebaiter. I figure about 2 clicks short of outright racist based on things he says.
3. Woodward and Burnstein investigated a white house coverup of high crimes and misdemeaners by Nixon. Beck used lies and exagerations to get a cabinet member to quit because beck wants to unconstitutionally promote a reichwing litmus test to determine who can and who can't serve this country.
and 4., I just love it when someone who blindly believes everything beck tells him comes on this board making statements about knee jerk reactions to headlines. That's becks whole schtick!
2. Race has nothing to do with this discussion.
3. Why did Van Jones quit because someone lied about him? Why was ACORN defunded because someone lied about them. If true, that makes no sense.
4. I don't blindly believe everything Beck tells me. If it wasn't for Obama attacking him and the Obama-bot liberal blogs gladly following Obama's lead, I'd never even pay attention to the guy. All he's done is raise everyone's curiosity level.
2. With beck, it's about race. To try and pick and choose when you can bring his race baiting into a discussion is just y'alls way of giving racists credibility.
3. You already know why, he stated as such. Same thing with ACORN, the defunding wasn't because it was true, it was because a bunch of spineless dems once again let a bunch of loud mouthed racists cow them into running for political cover.
4. Could've fooled me, you sure sound like one of his zombies.
A bunch of spineless Dems? 83-7 was the vote in the Senate. 345-75 in the House.
Systemic problems caught on tape for the whole world to judge and make up their minds. Every office they went to yielded the same blatantly corrupt examples.
Those "systematic problems" - you mean the heavily edited tapes that purposely cut out large sections? That purposely left out offices that didn't yield those corrupt examples you claim every office had? Too bad republicans don't hold their own to the same standard they demanded of the letter about bush not showing up for service. An easy low bar for republicans, an extremely difficult to pass high bar for democrats, business as usual...
Read, watch and learn.
Yes, you should read, watch and learn. Getting your "facts" from the reichwing sure hasn't helped your case.
The lady that purposely spoofed them was fired. She's also a liar. Probably more of a congenital one than Katherine Conway Russell. That was no spoof, snoopy. Try not to be naive. The lady was a psycho. What woman tells someone she offed her husband as a spoof that doesn't have some kind of serious mental health issues? You're proud someone like that works for that organization? And who has that kind of time to waste that they'd sit there and humor someone with wild stories for so long? Her spoof excuse doesn't hold water.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910210021
Okay, I've been 'editing' both audio and video for decades, including one (possibly semi-offensive) edit taking DeForest Kelley (Star Trek's Dr. McCoy) from "I'm a doctor, not..." and "He's dead, Jim" into "I'm dead, Jim".
That was edited, but was also doctored, because it created a statement that Kelley's character never made.
Editing, without doctoring, would be more along the lines of my cropping the commercial breaks out of a recorded TV show. It removes what was in the 'raw footage', but does not change the content because the commercial breaks are not part of the movie/show.
345-73
and
83-7.
Overwhelming majority.
Overwhelming corruption.
Giles and O'keefe experienced and recorded corruption at every stop they made in every ACORN office they went to.
Systemic corruption.
Just wait till Congress starts funding them again here next month. Expect fireworks and a whole lot of hemming and hawing. Get your talking points ready and well-sourced.
Looking forward to watching the reich froth at the mouth again next month. It's not like they stepped up to the plate and offered a "reputable" alternative to register the poor and minority voters, that clearly goes against their core values...
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction, but to add serious insult to serious injury she was not allowed to sue KBR because her employment contract said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration--a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.
This year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn't the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. "I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" He asked.
He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that it's not the government's place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html
Why aren't you livid at Daniel Inouye, a Democrat, who will likely strip the anti-rape amendment from the bill?
Why don't you ask him how he could do that?
Why no mention from you that a Democrat, Daniel Inouye is moving to strip the ant-rape legislation from that bill?
Why didn't you go by HIS office?Franken anti-rape provision may be stripped…by a Democrat
Read and learn.
In other words, it's not all black and white.
And you should not state that she was gang-raped unless there is some type of conviction. I hope she gets her day in court and she someday gets justice she deserves, but she did sign away her right to a trial when she became an employee. It sucks, but she did.
I don't know any conservatives like that.
Do you then think it should then follow that the gang rape in Richmond, CA, in which people stood around watching and filming and did nothing was emblematic of liberal values, since it happened in a very liberal enclave of the San Francisco area? Wanna take a guess as to how the voting for President in the last election split among party lines? Should any conclusions be drawn along political affiliation for that, soze?
Please, enlighten me with your objectivity.
I have no idea what your point is with that comparison to that hideousness in Richmond, even though it clearly makes you jump up and down with glee at your own cleverness. If anyone, liberal or conservative, is defending the perpetrators in that, then they're scum, just like the pro-rape 30.
Makes a lot of sense to me, juliajayne1.
According to whom...Glenn Beck? And based on what...his paranoid, ignorant scribblings on a freakin' blackboard?
Or when Obama got caught on tape calling a Fox reporter a "major-league [sphincter]" and refused to apologize?
Those dirty, dirty libruls.
BTW, I thought you didn't "believe" these folks? That's what you said yesterday when I told you that these idiots appeal to low-information listeners like you.
Just like you should be doing. Just like everyone should be doing.
Sarah Palin SNL jokes from wello ver a full year ago are oh so funny now, aren't they? Good one.
That was over a year ago. It's old news. It stopped being funny two days after the interview.
So she gets her info over the internet like just about everyone else in this country do, so what?
What does Sarah Palin have to do with this thread? C'mon.
Give it a rest, it just makes you look paranoid. Delusionally so.
It wasn't funny two years ago. It was deplorable and disgusting that one of our two major parties was so cynical or deluded that it would nominate such a demonstrably unready person for the vice-presidency. Her floundering, asked what she read on a daily basis, was deeply embarrassing.
It was funny,however, when Julia Jayne nailed you with it. I'm sure it smarts, though, and I can understand why you didn't laugh.
Jokes centered around events from over a year ago are not all that funny to me, sorry.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Tell you what, feast you eyes on this little Pew Research Poll that confirms what we all know already:
Pew Political IQ Poll: Republicans Consistently More Knowledgeable
Looks like watching FOX and Glenn Beck is a good thing, hmm?
That doesn't seem to be your argument in this thread. It doesn't seem to be anyone's argument that conservatives and FOX watchers are lemmings who enjoy being lied to, and for which this site devotes its mission to counteracting.
It's like you're afraid of us getting the truth. How else to explain the poll results that conservatives are slightly smarter than liberals?
Do you have a theory on these poll results and your concerns about Obama's and the Lefts paranoia about Fox's dumbing down of the conservative nation? Even allowing for the MOE, this supports the notion that your fears, as you state them, are decidedly unfounded, no?
Your point is Beck lies, conservatives are too stupid to know when he's lying, the misinformation is destroying our country. Either some force on the Left is doing essentially the same thing to balance that misinformation out for why the poll results lean slightly in favor or conservatives being more knowledgeable, or the attacks on Fox and lemming right-wingers is completely baseless.
Has to be one of the two, epkklk851.
Why don't you google his name and 'violence' and see how many hits you get. Read about his violent fantasies about Dana Perino and Scottie McClellan.
Here's a good list just for starters:
Mike Malloy violence archives
Bush never gave an interview to the NY Times. Hmm...
Ari Fleisher said " people need to be careful what they say"
The Bush White HOuse went after MSNBC
Ari Fleisher said " people need to be careful what they say"... again, so what? He apologized, but it's true, people always need to be careful what they say. It was a generic statement, but he realized afterward the connotations and apologized. No apologies have been issued by the Obama admin. regarding the onlslaught on FOX to date. Pls let me know if that changes.
The Bush White HOuse went after MSNBC ....No, they didn't. Nightly spit fests by Keith Olbermann and you can google it, but Bush never talked about him once, or if he did, nowhere near as much as Obama has mentioned Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. Not even close.
Please show me a link of any kind of a coordinated attack on MSNBC.
Anita done called him one of her two most favorite philosophers, one with whom she turns to most. And the stupidity of her adoration of Mao in front of a group of high school students defies credulity, not to mention the fact that , as Charles Krauthammer said, "She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one’s own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book?
The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?"
I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. A lot of times I am grateful to the Fox watchers because there is a limit to my time, and even if there weren't, my stomach and blood pressure wouldn't stand the strain. I listen to some of the garbage being spewed by the Foxterds and get sick or get mad, and really, I don't need that. It also makes other members of my family even more ill with less exposure than I can muster. A peaceful home is a good home.
I realize that critical thinking is tough for phony conservative/libertarians like you who "don't agree with the things said by Beck, et buds," but try it. It's an AMAZINGLY useful tool in life.
This advice comes free of charge.
And why do you guys discuss him daily?
As for why people discuss Beck, it's because his over-the-top, dishonest, hyperbolic rhetoric is dangerous because low-information, non-critical thinkers like you listen to him and BELIEVE he knows what the heck he's talking about.
Beck implicitly compared himself to W&B . . . how hard is that for you to understand?
Why do you deny agreeing with him when, quite obviously, you do?
Carry on, hoosier. And really, give critical thinking a try. You'd be AMAZED at how much it will help you in life.
You engage in that which you fear other people might be doing.
It's condescending to assume other people don't think for themselves when they watch FOX or Glenn Beck, and then participate in that behavior yourself, bintx.
Nahhh...that one's too easy.
First of all, it wouldn't be dishonest. Second, stop with the lame attempts at mindreading. bintx always comes across as well-read and up to debating any topic he addresses.
You engage in that which you fear other people might be doing.
More accusations without substance. Yawn.
It's condescending to assume other people don't think for themselves when they watch FOX [sic] or Glenn Beck, and then participate in that behavior yourself, bintx.
Enough lecturing. It's well established that Fox viewers typically do poorly when they're called upon to show what they actually know. Back in 7th grade biology, it was called "stimulus/response." If you aspire to do better, that's fine, but don't accuse us of sharing the weakness of the people on your side.
OK, Aristotle, is the problem here your logic, ethics, or just your English? In any case, it's garbage.
You've got a false simile, here, otherwise known as a bait and switch. Who are you referring to with that always suspect formula, "has been called Beck Obama's No. 1 Enemy?" He's "Been called," by whom? If it's not Obama himself, it's not, "Just like Woodward and Bernstein were by Nixon."
Sara and the Internet
You also came up, two years late and from who knows where, with a really lame defense of la Palin. Couric's newspaper question, prompted by previous revelations of the V-P candidate's shocking ignorance of world affairs, was basically, where do you get your information? If, indeed, she trolled the internet for news, as you posited, why couldn't she just say that? Because she didn't want to step on the toes of the MSM? Was she under a gag order? I think not. She was a deer in the headlights because she knew that an honest answer, a la Bush, "I don't read newspapers," would be disastrous. As a result, she completely booted a softball that was tossed up there so she could hit it out of the park and repair some of the damage she'd already done to herself.
Couric was trying to help her, and she wasn't even competent enough to take the help.
Beck was talking about a hit piece on him today in the Washington Post...
To find right PR guru, Beck looked to his left
In it, he spoke about the reference to him as people in the White House considering him Public Enemy #1.
Is it wrong of me to post here and just assume everyone is up to speed with the blog post or something. Please advise.
As to the Palin/Couric question, I have no idea and neither do you. There are a lot of things I admire about her just like there are a lot of things I admire about my wife who also works and does an awesome job raising our kids, but I think it was a mistake to put her in that position and then try to manage her at the same time. I'm going to go with my presumption that she read newspapers, though. Maybe it will come out in her book and we'll all find out. It's still a lousy joke a year later, though.
You don't find the joke funny? Not surprising, not a problem. I do, and neither of us will affect the other's opinion a whit.
So you're back from your internet presumption to presuming that she read newspapers. Also fine. My problem is that, no matter what she may have been reading, it didn't take. More important, the fact that she froze when confronted with a softball question indicated that she was inadequate as a candidate for national office.
I doubt that we'll "find out," much from her book. Who's really writing it again?
As long as you're asking for advice, yes, it is always wrong to write assuming facts not in evidence. If you don't know the old saying about that, it's a play on "ass, you, and me."
In this case, however, I was objecting to your (perhaps unintentional) verbal sleight-of-hand not WaPo's. Perhaps I should have said said that you were seconding Wapo's sloppy (to be kind) logic/writing/reporting. Fair point. You wrote that the incognito and unverifiable "some," were "the same" as Nixon. If I have to explain why that's untrue on its face, I'd suggest Logic 101.
If you're going to include snippets from sources in the future, perhaps you should know that my BS Meter hits the red zone when I see "some say," or "some would say." Everything that follows is suspect.
You have exhibited NO critical thinking whatsoever.
Also, you were the one who said you didn't believe the crap that Beck and the rest of these idiots shovel EVERY DAY . . . Critically thinking, based upon your posts here, I find that REALLY hard to believe.
You're one of the low information listeners who hang on their every word.
Obama was wrong, you guys don't want to think for yourselves. The Pew Research Poll proves it.
Pew Political IQ Poll: Republicans Consistently More Knowledgeable
Critical thinking is not Beck's strong suit, as anyone knows. By his logic I can say:
Nazi's were Germans.
Germans are blonde.
Glenn Beck is Blonde!
OH MY GOD! Glenn Beck is a Nazi!
Now, that is patently false logic, but it is the same logic that Beck uses everyday to smear anyone who comes under his radar. No facts, no sources, just hearsay and distorted quotes.
You are right in that he implicity compares the Obama admin to Nixon, but you are wrong that he is not comparing himself to Woodward et al. Both statements are implicit, and both are laughable!
Seriously, if you truly believed what you wrote about both Van Jones and ACORN, your issues should be with Obama by a ratio of about 10 to 1 over Glenn Beck. Not just that he threw Van Jones under the bus so quickly, but that he provided no defense whatsoever for ACORN, an organization at which he cut his political teeth. Why aren't you just enraged at him for not only caving, but for directing all his ire at Glenn Beck and FOX and not in defending someone unjustly charged.
Your actions don't follow logic.
Your actions are lemming-like.
Obama didn't cut his political teeth with ACORN, you just made that up. Why does Obama need to defend ACORN? They're more than able to defend themselves, as they have, time and again against spurious charges brought forth by folks like you, Glenn Beck, and FoxNews. Obama has nothing to do with de-funding ACORN, that was Congress, you know, the people who allocate money in this country.
Why direct ire at FoxNews? Because they are making things up out of whole cloth (with Beck leading the charge) about Obama's administration, so in order to combat the lies, you have to combat the liars.
Your actions are lemming like, as in, you keep repeating oft debunked talking points that aren't true, or don't make much sense.
As to ACORN, I think the issue here is that they're waiting on facts before opening their mouths. There wasn't enough information to make a decision on. Congress should not have defunded them until there was more information. It's pretty simple here, maybe Obama learned from Beer Gate that you need to know the whole story before you go out on that limb. On top of that, it's not up to the President to defend ACORN, they can do that on their own.
Now NONE of that has anything to do with Beck's complete lack of critical thinking......
Talk about a lemming.
You think a fax goes out every morning to every conservative telling them what to say for the day. I'm arguing about what Glenn Beck said today. I've told people here what I agree with and what I don't agree with, both with them and with Glenn Beck. If you say something incorrect or that I disagree with, of course it's going to sound like a talking point to you. Yours sound like talking pts. to me, too,but I'm not going to tell you that.
And it's still overpriced.
You don't tell ugly truths, Mr. Beck. You tell ugly lies. Being called out on your lies is not persecution. You are far too wealthy, far too white, and far too ensconced in your position in society to know what persecution really is.
Were W&B allowed to print wild conspiracy theories and make accusations agains Nixon with absolutely no proof or source to back up the claim?
I seem to remember there was a third party involved in investigation of the Watergate break in. Ben Bradlee.
He as their editor, required W&B to provide sources for their accusations.
1. Jones
2. ACORN
1. Ignorance; and
2. Paranoia.
That's really a messy combination...
2. ACORN.....on tape, not made up. Not in dispute. Defunded.
QED.
2. ACORN... a couple of spoiled wingnut-welfare beneficiaries who thought they were Borat got strung along by employees who found them amusing. Defunded because (again) you're a bunch of shrieking bullies.
86'd.
House votes 345-75. Whole lotta Democrats there too. In both cases, more Dems than Reps.
Do you have any idea what you are talking about soze? Because 'we're' a bunch of shrieking bullies? Republicans are in no position to be bullies, my friend.
Thats the only position they're in.
ACORN . . . the jury's still out on that little bit of created "journalism." Condemning an entire group for the actions of a few employees is a bit over-the-top.
BTW, I thought you didn't believe in what theses folks were saying? That's what you said in my statement that they appealed to low-information listeners like you.
Yet Beck never produced any arrest records, which would have been easy, because such records are public.
Even Van Jones former employer said he wasn't even in LA at the time.
Beck didn't dig any further than the internet for his smear of Jones.
I'd sure love to poke Beck right in the eye. Hard.
You have interpreted my explicit anti-violence statement as an implicit pro-violence statement, but the truth is, my explicit anti-violence statement was really meant to be an explicit pro-violence statement!
Mwuuhhahahahahahahaha...!
* It's sort of like hazing, a fraternity prank. Sort of like that kind of fun.
o Stated about abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib by United States soldiers (May 3-4, 2004), quoted in — Hunt, Jim (2009). They Said What?: Astonishing Quotes on American Democracy, Power, and Dissent. Polipoint Press. p. 196. ISBN 0981709168.
Of course, the prisoners have 'volunteered' just as fraternity pledges, right?
And I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm against enhanced interrogation techniques used against anyone at any time.
As I said -- and yes, I did mean it -- I don't wish violence on anyone...beyond a poke in the eye for Glen Beck.
I'm playing their game even though I adamantly oppose it!
The epitome of evil and madness............
Fox won't publish anything unless "some say" it.
Yeah, they're the same, all right.
The TANG documents, the real ones, show that Bush never completed his commitment to TANG. I never saw the Rather story, no interest, but I did read the TANG documents.
That being said this string of arguments is pointless. The only thing that has come of it is "did so, did not, did so, did not."
You can not argue with some one who refuses to believe that his opponent could actually have a valid point of view. His belief is that not only are you wrong but that it is sad that you can not even see this fact. And yes hoosier and friends I am speaking of you. I also do not buy the premise that if you ignore them they will go away but arguing with them like this only excites small minded hate mongering little men.(or women if the case may be)
"Yeah, they said the same thing about Dan Rather.
Signed, idiot."
They are respected journalists, who wrote Pulitzer Prize winning articles, for genuine news departments.
Beck fails on all three criteria.
Now that is a good comparison Becky! You out did yourself on that one!
While making the comparison, Beck adds that he's not saying he's Woodward and Bernstein.
You know you were right the first time! Come on! <sarcasm>
Turns out the CIA did lie to Congress.
Seems as though, the whole big deal that conservatives had with Pelosi calling out the CIA for lying to Congress, is, well, true. The CIA DID lie to Congress, several times.
Oops..
Jason