So it was Karl Rove, and not Rather?

[SamSpade]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14781_Congressman_Says_Rove_Planted_CBS_Memos&only=yes

Or so Maurice Hinchey would have us believe. My favorite part is below, where he admits he hasn't a shred of proof, but believes it's HIS JOB to speculate on such things!

_____________________________________________

Audience Member: Do you have any evidence for that?

Congressman Hinchey: Yes I do. Once they did that —

Audience: [Murmuring]

Congressman Hinchey: ...once they did that, then it undermined everything else about Bush’s draft dodging. Once they were able to say, ‘This is false! These papers are not accurate, they’re, they’re, they’re false, they’ve been falsified.’ That had the effect of taking the whole issue away.

Audience Member: So you have evidence that the papers came from the Bush administration?

Congressman Hinchey: No. I — that’s my belief.

Audience Member: OK.

Congressman Hinchey: And I said that. In the very beginning. I said, ‘It’s my belief that those papers, and that setup, originated with Karl Rove and the White House.’

Audience Member: Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to make charges like that?

Congressman Hinchey: No I don’t. I think it’s very important to make charges like that. I think it’s very important to combat this kind of activity in every way that you can. And I’m willing — and most people are not — to step forward in situations like this and take risks.

Audience: [Clapping and cheering.]

Congressman Hinchey: I consider that to be part of my job, and I’m gonna continue to do it.

 

[vraiblonde]

Oh, man! Hinchey for DNC Chairman!

 

[Lenny]

...barking moonbat....

So, if Carl Rove DID plant the story does that mean Rather didn't have to check its accuracy? Seems to me if the Dems really believe this tripe, it was their responsibility to help CBS not step in it/on it.

 

[SamSpade]

What's funny is, they seem to be trying to say that Karl Rove is SO brilliant and treacherous, that he was able to concoct this whole scheme for those evil Republicans.

But what is coming across is, yep, we're all a bunch of ravenous buffoons, and we were duped yet *AGAIN* by that wascally wabbit!

This makes me *WANT* to vote for them?

The other is the obvious - that Hinchey has mere speculation, and somehow makes it out to be his JOB to be courageous enough to make silly allegations.

So consider the two sides, and which is more plausible - that Rather rushed to judgment with a forgery that cast Bush in a bad light, or that Karl Rove somehow, through a myriad of clever channels, 'leaked' a bad forgery, knowing that Rather and the Democrats would be too stupid to check carefully in their ravenous desire to make the President look bad.

After you consider which is more plausible, tell me which one makes the Democrats look like anything but complete idiots.

Nope. Me neither.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Larry Gude]

I LOVE freedom of speech...

as Rep. Hinchey launched into a barking moonbat conspiracy rant worthy of Democratic Underground

CLASSIC

 

[Larry Gude]

No, seriously, I LOVE freedom of speech...

“Don’t you think it’s irresponsible to make charges like that?” Hinchey replied, “No, I don’t, I think it’s very important to make charges like that ... I think it’s very important to combat this kind of activity in every way that you can, and I’m willing, as most people are not, to step forward in situations like this and take risks.”

...said the barking moonbat conspiracy advocate.

 

[Larry Gude]

I have this habit when checking out links...

...people post of going to the home page to see what otehr goodies lay about.

Little Green Footballs home page.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/

Charlie Rangel:

top House Democrat Charles Rangel said it was bigotry to use the term “Islamic terrorism” to refer to groups like Hizballah, and questioned whether a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed.

Of course, LGF provides some links that make you wonder if Charlie Rangel exists...or if he isn't just another Rove trick.

:

 

[Larry Gude]

OK...goldmine time...

Death to America...

Print this Transcript
Email a friend
Close this window



2/18-19/2005 Clip No. 566

Hizbullah Leader Hassan Nasrallah: Death to America

The following are excerpts from two speeches by Hizbullah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. Al-Manar TV aired these speeches on February 18 and 19:

Hassan Nasrallah: Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. its destiny is manifested in our motto: "Death to Israel."

Crowdeath to Israel

Death to Israel

Death to Israel

Death to Israel

Death to Israel

Say it isn't so.

Then...

The American administration is behind Israel. I must clarify that when I say 'America' I do not mean the American people, most of whom are distant and ignorant of what is going on in the world

and then...

We consider it to be an enemy because it wants to humiliate our governments, our regimes, and our peoples. Because it is the greatest plunderer our treasures, our oil, and our resources, while millions in our nation suffer unemployment, poverty, hunger, unmarriagability, ignorance, darkness, and so on. America…

OK, we're ignorant and DON'T know what is going on but you guys are ignorant and DO know what is going on.

Does this guy know Charlie Rangel?

 

[SamSpade]

...said the barking moonbat conspiracy advocate.

Heard the audio on Hannity the other day.

What kind of nut thinks that airing his delusional speculations is 'combatting these things' and 'taking risks'?

Any guesses on what the next weird conspiracy claim is gonna be?

 

[vraiblonde]

Any guesses on what the next weird conspiracy claim is gonna be?

You know, I tried to do that for awhile - figure out what these screwballs would come up with next. I just don't have the imagination for it, I guess.

 

[Larry Gude]

It's just the party as a whole...

What kind of nut thinks that airing his delusional speculations is 'combatting these things' and 'taking risks'?

My theory:

To these people, their guy, Clinton, got overthrown, unjustly. Nevermind he served two full terms. Nevermind the evidence from Whitewater to the Chinese, to abuse of power and so forth. IT WAS JUST SEX.

They sold out to protect him, to keep him in power and got NOTHING in return. No great legacy. No Kyoto. No great program besides 'Americorp' our legendary paid volunteers. They got welfare reform and a balanced budget, decidely Republican and conservative issues.

This all could have been validated if Gore had won; at least they'd still have the Whitehouse.

Well, of course, if they aren't gonna face getting used by Clinton there is no way in hell to face Gore losing to a friggin bumpkin. CONSPIRACY! Not a close election that could have gone, justly, either way, but a crime.

Then Bush starts off getting tax cuts and cleaning up Wall Street which did epochly well under Clinton, another GOP victory. Then 9/11. Then going after bad guys which Clinton never did. Then nothing good for them comes from the mid term elections. Then Iraq.

Their world view is simply that they are right and everyone agrees with them and it is impossible, impossible, for John Ashcrofts, Colin Powells, Dick Cheneys, Condi Rices and George Effing Bushs to be duly elected.

There MUST be something wrong and the only way to set things right is fight, fight, FIGHT!

The converse is that maybe, just maybe, they hold minority views on many issues and that it's OK.

NO!

FIGHT!

 

[SamSpade]

Well, I agree. The repeated point of view I get, the more I read from the left, is - there's no "left" and "right". There's no two sides to the issue, no "opposite" end of the spectrum. There's the mainstream, sensible, logical, popular view of all normal Americans - and there's this annoying view from the weirdos, the rednecks, bigots and all those wrong-headed types.

In their mind, the two viewpoints aren't equally valid.

It would be like lining up scientists one one side who believe in oxygen, and those who believe in "phlogiston". One side are the scientists, the other side, the crackpots.

It would be like lining up those who believe in a round Earth, and those who believe the Earth is still flat, the Moon is made of green cheese, the landings were faked, and the Holocaust was a lie.

That's what I get from it. That's where Democrats can say "Hillary is moving to the 'center'". Hello? She's on the "left". 'Center' is not a direction - she's moving to the right.

So why shouldn't they decry the state of the nation - the nuts and the crackpots are taking over.

See, what always bothered me before, was the lack of respect and civility from the other side - at least, that's what I got. I used to think it was just the flip side of what they got from more extreme conservatives. Extreme conservatives often frame liberals as wrong, because their arguments are *morally wrong*. It's the kind of indifference and contempt shown by the more self-righteous religious types. The flip side is what *I* got - that WE were wrong, because we were not 'progressive', prejudicial, behind the times, old-fashioned and too much attached to our practiced bigotry and self-righteousness.

And I think, I was giving them too much credit. The hysteria over the election has convinced me of this much - they don't view our side as the opposite of theirs, the yin to their yang, the sweet to their sour. They see themselves as representing normalcy. The 'center', if you will. And they have little tolerance for the right, just as you'd have little tolerance for a homeless nutcase blathering on inanities in the subway car - he doesn't have a "difference of opinion" - he's just *crazy*.

 

[vraiblonde]

he doesn't have a "difference of opinion" - he's just *crazy*.

To be fair, I think that about most liberals/Democrats these days - they don't have a difference of opinion, they're just crazy. I'd make that a blanket statement except for Rraley on here and sometimes Spoiled. But most of what I see are the extremist DU nutties and the wackadoodles on TV.

I don't think Dan Rather has a point - I think he's crazy.

I don't think Howard Dean has a point - I think he's crazy.

They flip-flop and misrepresent way too much for me to take them seriously. Like over at the DU, they're having a fit about some girl in Iran getting executed as punishment for having sex - saying how horrible Iran is and how heinous their government is. But you let George Bush even mention sending troops over there and watch them turn around.

Same with these Islamic terrorists - they can fly planes into our buildings in the name of their God and that's just fine. But you let some Christian church do a living Nativity - then their heads spin and they start puking pea soup because religion is so offensive to them.