Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
A few choice selections:
The 43rd president of the United States lied the nation into the war, lied 4,343 of his fellow citizens to death in that war, lied about upholding the constitution, and lied about weapons of mass destruction.Keith takes apart Wilson's apology. Wilson, remember said this:
He lied about how he reacted to al-Qaida before 9/11 and he lied about how he reacted to al-Qaida after 9/11. He lied about getting Bin Laden, and he lied about not getting Bin Laden.
He lied about nation-building in Iraq, lied about the appearance of new buildings in the nation of Iraq, and lied about embassy buildings in nations like Iraq. He lied about trailers with mobile weapons labs in them, and he lied about trailers with Cuban prostitutes in them.
He and his administration lied — by the counting of one non-profit group — 532 times about links between al-Qaida and Iraq. Only 28 of those were by that President, but he made up for that by lying 231 times about WMD.
And yet not once did an elected Democratic official shout out during one of George W. Bush's speeches and call him a "liar."
"While I disagree with the President's statements, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility."To which Keith answers:
For the lack of civility, Congressman? Is that what you think this is about?Of course Wilson was wrong about Obama lying. But don't take my word for it or Keith's, for that matter.
Politifact says so. They state that Congressman Wilson's assertion that President Obama was lying was false.
Some more:
It is this week, evident that the greatest threat to the nation is not terrorism nor the economy nor H1N1 nor even bad health care. It is rank, willful stupidity. When did we come to extol stupidity ahead of information, and rely on voo-doo, superstition, and prejudice ahead of education?I'll just leave it at that.
9 comments:
and all of that is true.
I’ve said before I am not a fan of Olbermann and I have to concede the point made by conservative commenters here that Democrats certainly have made noises or didn’t applaud during various Bush speeches. But in this case, I agree with Sherry that as far as I can see, everything Olbermann said is true. I mean, I don’t want to be lumped into a category of people who say that everything Obama does is right, or that Obama is messianic in anyway. But Obama wasn’t lying, and Wilson’s past support of George Bush is a measure of Wilson’s own character.
One thing that really pisses me off, that I did not see in the Olbermann transcript, is that “Joe” Wilson says he was told to apologize by the Republican leadership. First, that he had to be told infuriates me, second that he was apparently surly sounding when he told that to reporters… I feel the emotion that is evoked by the image of John Cleese ranting about a dirty fork.
Clearly Republicans, following the lead of O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Quinn, Hannity and my new least favorite person in the world, Glenn Beck, have found that “appealing” to fears, deep seated prejudices and superstitions make them more popular than trying to be the party of ideas (forget any attempt to be the party of ideals). Even conservative commenters on this blog and everywhere else on the internet are reduced to “the democrats did it first”, petty name calling and misrepresentations of Democratic proposals. I once respected what Republicans were trying to do in being the party of ideas, but that got beaten out of me when I saw Republicans embrace the folksy fear mongering of Ronald Reagan.
Ed -
I don't buy the "he was told to apologize" anymore than I believe his outburst was and emotional. This was likely a GOP strategic move from start to finish. Indeed, the one thing that most pols learn early on is to not go "off script," so, cynic that I am, I believe the entire event was little more than effort to use an "expendable crew member" to shout down the African-American President, in much the same way that the Republican response was given by a no-name. After what happened to Bobby Jindal, the GOP may be thinking that they're not going to waste their bench strength on stuff like this, but instead us the infantry....the grunts, to get move their agenda forward.
Keith Olbermann is the last person on earth who can criticize lack of civility.
As for Politifact I do not trust them after the whitewash they gave science czar John Holdren' book ECOSCIENCE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/
Using their logic someone who writes a book defending the Nazis (Pat Buchanan) can not be called a Nazi sympathizer if they claim otherwise.From wiki
In defending himself against charges of Nazi sympathies, Buchanan calls Hitler a "monster" guilty of "ugly actions and discriminatory laws".
Olbermann may be the left wing equivalent of Bill O’Reilly (I wouldn’t go so far as to say the equivalent of Glenn Beck), but as I said, in this case I could find nothing to argue with in the points he made.
As for Politifact and your weird digression into John Holdren’s book Ecoscience (or which he was one of three authors), but back three decades ago there was serious concern that the world would become overpopulated. I don’t know how old you are or how widely read, but I was around then and followed this stuff loosely. The movie Soylent Green played on those fears, and there were several books out on the subject. I think most serious scientists at the time thought there were more important concerns facing humanity, but it was a popular subject. Overpopulation has simply faded away as a popular concern, possibly because it failed to have any meaningful affect in the United States, in fact advances in agricultural science has led agribusiness to try to find ever more innovative ways to make us eat more.
But here’s the thing, HTTT. Unless Republicans/conservatives are perfect, unless they have never done anything I disagree with, then you can not reach back into history and find one instance you disagree with and hold it up as proof that this person or organization is always wrong. If Politifact gets one thing or even a dozen things wrong, as long as they get the vast majority of things right, then it is reasonable to use them as a source. Their methodology is to go to the original text, what ever it is, and repeat and evaluate what they think the relevant passages are. Now maybe you disagree with their choice of text they select, or their evaluation of it, but then you need to produce other text from the original or a different evaluation to make your point.
That’s what reasoned debate should look like, not shouting out “You lie” in the middle of a speech.
By the way, Clyde, I only know what I read in Salon, in a headline, as far as Wilson being told by the leadership to apologize. He is already apparently backpedaling on his level of contrition. Now, could this whole thing have been orchestrated by the Republicans? Perhaps, but I don’t really see it.
Ed -
It was either manufactured by the GOP at large or by the Congressman's own team, but it was not a random moment of righteous indignation. This is not the equivalent of England's PM's Questions, in which grumbling and outbursts are expected....and traditional.
No, someone parsed this ahead of time and calculated that it would help either just Wilson or the GOP at large.
As CNN is reporting, WIlson has now added at least another 200K to his campaign war chest. Of course, reports say that his opponent has raised three times that amount.....
Personally, I think it was less about aiding fundraising and more about building Wilson's cred as a "maverick."
And here's a link to a New York Times piece just today, in which we see why Wilson did what he did..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/us/politics/11wilson.html?_r=1&hp
To me, one scary thought is just what all those other right wing Members are considering, now they they've seen Wilson step over the line so boldly. Many, I'm sure, are jealous of him...and more than a few may try to one-up him. Watch for it....
“I do think that, as I said last night, we have to get to the point where we can have a conversation about big, important issues that matter to the American people without vitriol, without name-calling, without the assumption of the worst of other people’s motives,” -- Barak Obama
Heh, heh, that is so funny!
Yes, how dare anyone assume that someone yelling out "YOU LIE!" isn't name calling or having negative motivations. Obviously anyone is just reading WAY too much into someone acting like they're on Jerry Springer at a joint session of Congress with the President. Joe Wilson is a real peach of a guy!
Post a Comment