Despite the fact that the General Public (GP) has put the “Bush AWOL” story behind them as being without merit, BigMedia can’t let it go. In today’s WaPo, Dana Milbank wastes no time in reminding the stupid GP (that’s us’n, folks!) what they should be concentrating on – no matter what the setting. First lines from the article:
“This time, there can be no dispute: President Bush fulfilled his duties to the National Guard on Tuesday.
Bush, embattled over gaps in his service to the Guard during the Vietnam War, flew to the Joint Readiness Training Center here in central Louisiana to address and to lunch with members of the National Guard who are about to be deployed to Iraq.”
The only ones “embattled” are members of the press, esp. Mr. or Ms. Milbank (as the case may be), for their refusal to let a non-story die. This is the same thing I referred to in an earlier post below (08 Feb), where the press repeats debunked rumors (aka, “lies”) so many times in the hope that the ignorant masses will eventually come to accept these absolute falsehoods as truth.
[Aside: Where have we heard of this tactic before? It’s not new. It was most famously employed by the architect of Nazi Germany propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels, who’s machine fully embraced the concept of, “If a lie is repeated often enough, and loud enough, then people will come to accept it as truth.” Seems familiar, doesn’t it? :End aside] Before I was bitchin’ about the casual way reporters (in this particular case, CNN Headline reporters) throw out the statement, “Bush Whitehouse was preparing for war with Iraq since Day One in office – before 9/11!”, despite the fact that their source for this statement, former Treasury Secretary O’Neil, has disavowed that interpretation of what he said.
Now it’s “Bush was AWOL”, even though there’s nothing to back that statement up. Just the opposite – any factual evidence brought forth has been by the Bush Admin; the media only has rumors, or less. What they hung this story’s hat on was the fact that no one could remember Bush serving his time; in fact, one CO even said he couldn’t recollect ever seeing Bush on base. This is the same tired CRAP we heard in 2000, and here it is again. But when they brought out these old charges this time around, their main source, the CO who said he couldn’t remember Bush being on base, stated that his words were taken out of context BACK IN 2000, and what he really said & meant was that Bush very well could’ve been on base every day his service required; it’s just that this CO did not personally recall this as fact. That’s a little different than the media’s spin. And this time around, there are people coming forward to say they served with Bush (see post immediately below).
But wait – Bush can’t produce a person or persons who can vouch that he was at work each and every day of his service. And besides that, how well did he serve when on base? Wasn’t he just avoiding the war?
Folks, what you’re hearing now is the sound of the goalposts being moved back. There is no way to satisfy the media on this subject. Whatever EVIDENCE the Whitehouse produces, it always “raises more questions than it answers”. Always, with no exception. Want to see pay stubs, honorable discharge calculation, witnesses? Well, you silly twit, they aren’t ALL the pay stubs, the “honorable” discharge is questioned & comes with scare quotes attached, the witnesses only can account for x-number of days – not his entire service. Puh-lease. From the same article:
“The White House last week released records from Bush's Guard files that provided numerous details about his service but did not resolve the central controversy over whether he served with the Alabama Guard while working on a Senate campaign in the state in 1972.”
Me wonders how many of us out there who served in the Guard (which I did not) would be able to produce as many records as Bush has, some thirty years after the fact? Still, it doesn’t answer “the central controversy”. Just who the FREAK decides what the central controversy is? The same brain-dead pukes who wrote this and similar articles, that’s who. Certainly not the dim-witted GP. Don’t you worry your pretty li’l head, American Voting Public. Our saintly journalists will guide you down the only path that sane adults would tread. Aack! Please, just report – don’t distort. Don’t make the story fit your agenda. It’s insulting…
And how can we have an article on Iraq where we don’t mention WMDs? Well, we just can’t. Same article:
“It was Bush's first visit to a military base since former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said it is unlikely that stocks of prohibited weapons will be found in Iraq -- undermining the administration's main justification for war.”
How the HELL does this fit in? I would guess it’s like the auto-spell/grammar check in a word processing application. Anytime the words “Bush” & “Iraq” are in the same file, the application automatically inserts the phrase “since former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay said it is unlikely that stocks of prohibited weapons will be found in Iraq -- undermining the administration's main justification for war”. This is really nothing short of campaigning against Bush, and should be found only in the Op-Ed sections of such a widely read publication. Shame on you, WaPo.
Comments? Well, until I figure out how to replace BlogSpeak, you'll just have to e-mail me, madbob-at-budweiser.com.
(You do know to replace "-at-" with "@", don't you?)
Is it just me, or is the press having flashbacks to the year 2000? This hoopla about Bush’s Viet Nam era National Guard service is old news. Back in 2000, I was a’pullin’ for John McCain, and much wanted to believe the stories of Bush getting preferential treatment (be/c he got Guard as opposed to “real” combat duty), being AWOL, etc. But the story fizzled out, the press lost interest because there was no story; there were no facts to back up the allegations.
But suddenly *whooooossh*, it’s 2000 again. Bush went AWOL for a year during his 'Nam duty, and there were whispers in the background – (use your best Gollum/Sirkis voice) - deserter! That sh*t didn’t flush back then, and it don’t flush now. The new media battlecry is, “You can’t produce even one person to say they served with Bush during this time? Not ONE? *dripping indignation* Well, try this on for size. If COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired), U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard, Herndon, VA is for real, then that dog don’t hunt, as sure as that shit didn’t flush – oops, meant “sh*t”.
But I guess I should be happy. The vibes I’m getting is that the Bush AWOL story is rallying Bush supporters. And all you Kerry supporters better be prepared to defend your guy. There is no doubt of his meritorious 'Nam service, while he was over there. But being pals with Hanoi Jane (I still wonder why she was never prosecuted for her actions, or why people don’t automatically hawk loogies at her face whenever she appears in public) and turning on your brothers in arms? While they were still over there fighting & dying? This is the guy you think has more character than Bush? You must be kidding...
Comments? Well, until I figure out how to replace BlogSpeak, you'll just have to e-mail me, madbob-at-budweiser.com.
(You do know to replace "-at-" with "@", don't you? And why, you ask? Be/c spammers have deployed robots/spiders that crawl thru all websites, copying all e-mail addresses & returning these addresses to their spam-master. So never, ever post your actual e-mail address on any website! This helpful tip provided to you - FREE!! courtesy of the Angry American)
David Kay & WMD:
The Threat That Was Worse Than The One That Wasn’t Found (huh?)
Rants, by definition should be long and long-winded, but somehow this subject begs to be kept short and simple. There’s so much that can be expounded on why the US had no choice but to rid the world of Saddam Hussein (SH), but all it should take is a quick look at the situation and the choices. Really, even Clinton believed this was the case, and after 9/11 no sane Commander-In-Chief could’ve done anything else. Because of the reality of the post-9/11 world, every thinking, rational adult should have come to the realization that an “imminent” threat comes in forms similar to fully fueled (& fully “passengered”) jumbo jets slamming into civilian & military office complexes. So to hell with short and simple, it’s time to rant!
Are we to believe that it was acceptable that SH “only” had the capability to produce these poisons? Can you hear how stupid that sounds? Hey, apparently anybody (in terms of rogue gov’t nation-states) can PURCHASE stockpiles of this crap, all the way to nukes (do I have to link to the Pakistan, Libya stories? If I get motor-vated, I will - promise) on some sort of really bad guy black market. We could deal with this situation by trade sanctions, etc. You cut the rogue off from the source of his evil toys, and then you starve him to death (er, trade sanctions) unless the toys are relinquished; no shots fired. Even the UN would be happy.
But what happens if the stockpiles were produced in-country? What if the rogue has developed the organic capability (meaning, he don’t need no stinkin’ imported germs!) to produce any one of the various Nuclear Chemical Biological (NCB) weapons? [And I know I could’ve switched the Chem & Bio to make a NBC weapon, but the Dems are already using that one against THIS country – sorry, that was uncalled for] To the aforementioned thinking, rational adult - wouldn’t that appear to be WORSE than a stockpile of NCB weapons? Should we have been content, if we knew that SH merely had the capability to produce NCB, because he apparently did not have the stockpiles? This alone was prohibited by numerous UN sanctions. We also know now, although you wouldn’t of heard much about it anywhere other than the blogosphere, that Kay found SH developing missiles with ranges well beyond the UN-approved models. Again, should we have been CONTENT that SH maintained the capability to produce NCB weapons, and that he was developing the capability to launch those puppies well beyond his borders? And is there anybody out there – and I’ll even open this up to humans outside my preferred “thinking, rational adult” category – who does not believe that SH would’ve started up his NCB machine as soon as the UN Inspectors left & sanctions were lifted? We should have been content?
Further Happy Thoughts in the same vein:
If SH lost control of his NCB machine (& didn’t realize it), that would have made a bad situation worse, and again justifies our action. Why? With the intersection of anti-Western terrorist groups and a beleaguered tyrant, regardless of connection to 9/11 or to al-Q (they’re still Terrorists!!), in a place where top level control of such dangerous programs had been lost/subverted, would we even have known when Pandora’s Box had been sold to the highest bidding jihadist? Or would another two skyscrapers, one Pentagon wedge, and three plane loads worth of people have died first? I can’t see how anyone could come to any other conclusion. I need medication – this is driving me ape-sh*t.
Kay’s assertion: all were deceived - US/allies/enemies, even SH. Press release: US intel got it completely wrong.
Also, think on this: There might’ve been tons of stuff - or not. Could Bush err on side of “not”? No one would’ve forgiven him if the worst came to pass. Nor should he be, or anyone associated with such a catastrophic failure.
Must stop now – rant overload. Words coming faster than fingers can move, thank Bill Gates for spellck –oops...
You might've noticed that I lost the ability to allow comments to these rants. The service shutdown, and has been replaced with some kind of webring forum that I'm not familiar with. But it's free, so let's see what happens. Hopefully, it will allow some form of interaction...
UPDATE: OK, so that was a bust. Dunno what it was supposed to do, but all I get is a trip back to the BlogSpeak.net site. I'll see what else I can come up with. If the need strikes, there's always my e-mail, madbob-at-budweiser.com.
What Liberal Media Bias? Well, it’s the bias that allows CNN Headline reporters to repeat a distortion of facts (okay, let’s just call it a “lie”) so often that (the hope is) the gullible General Public (GP) will begin to accept this “lie” as being true.
But I just can’t believe that CNN HL is doing this – oh, wait, you can’t read my mind. Friday at approx. 2300 & again on Saturday at around noon (6 & 7 Feb, respectively), CNN HL reporters stated, as part of a semi-related story, that the Bush Whitehouse had been planning for Saddam H.’s ouster since Day 1 of his presidency. They use former Treasury Secretary O’Neil as their source, EVEN THOUGH CNN THEMSELVES REPORTED THAT O’NEIL HAD DISAVOWED THAT INTERPRETATION OF HIS STATEMENTS! Sorry – that was rude.
Money quote: “People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration. Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq.” [emphasis mine]
I just can’t believe that they think we are that stupid. We aren’t, are we?
As long as I'm doing Birthday announcements (once you start, you'd better cover all your family & friends or they'll think you don't care... well, I don't want to rant about it, so I'll just accept it as a new burden I've given myself, like an idiot), Happy Birthday!! to bro-in-law Bill & niece Meghan, one day late...
This is pretty cool - create a map of the states you've visited in the US. My visited states are in red. Click on the link below the map to create your own, or try one for the countries of the world you've visited. Enjoy...