February 25, 2003
Presidential spokesperson laughed off the podium.
This
realaudio clip
(with a 2-minute lead-in)
from an
Ari Fleisher press conference
on February 25, 2003,
shows the Presidential spokesperson being literally
laughed off the podium
when he said in response to a journalist's question
about the UN Security Council vote to sanction war against Iraq:
you are saying leaders of other countries are buyable
and that's not an acceptable proposition.
Amazingly this is the real thing and
not a Saturday Night Live comedy sketch.
How come I never saw this on
Fox News
which keeps boasting about being fair and balanced?
Posted by mjm at
08:37 PM
|
Comments (0)
February 20, 2003
The Yes-But Parade.
In response to William Safire's
column
in the February 22, 2003
New York Times
I posted the following comments to his discussion board:
Mr. Safire conveniently forgot to mention the
"yes-butters" on the other side, for example:
1. Yes, the phone records from the al Qaeda cell
in Germany show phone calls to Saudia Arabia and
Egypt and some other mid-east countries and none
to Iraq, but we think Iraq has ties to the 9/11
terrorists anyway.
2. Yes, not one of the 9/11 hijackers came
from Iraq and 14 out of 19 did come from Saudia
Arabia, but we still think Iraq supports al
Qaeda and Saudia Arabia does not.
3. Yes, even with all our sophisticated spy
technology (on the ground and in the air) we
cannot find one iota of evidence of Iraqi weapons
of mass destruction, but we know they have them.
4. Yes, lots of countries, including the United
States and Israel, have failed to obey United
Resolutions, but Iraq is different and we can
choose which UN resolutions we want enforced.
(In fact when the UN passed a resolution for the
US to stop its terrorist war against Nicaragua,
we escalated the war instead.)
I wonder, does Mr. Safire not see this other side
or does he purposely try to hide the other side
so that his side wins the argument?
Posted by mjm at
08:11 PM
|
Comments (0)
February 18, 2003
Saddam and Osama.
It seems clear to me that between Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden, bin Laden is by far the more dangerous.
So George Bush, especially if he has any proof of a
connection between them, should offer Saddam a deal:
help us capture and/or kill bin Laden and we will
leave you alone. If Saddam is as unscrupulous as
he appears to be, he should have no qualms about doing
anything to save his own ass. As a result, we will get
the man who really does want to cause us harm and we will
avoid a costly and unpopular war. If we could support
Saddam in his war against Iran, why not now? And perhaps
he'll piss off al Qaeda and they will kill him for us too.
That's the way to do it -- get our two enemies fighting
with each other.
Posted by mjm at
10:19 PM
|
Comments (0)
February 10, 2003
Bill O'Reilly and Fox News.
I find
Bill O'Reilly on Fox News
the most entertaining of the right wing pundits who seem to be all
over cable TV these days.
(Where is the so-called "liberal media" these days anyway?)
Not that I agree with hardly anything he
opines,
but at least for the most part he does it with some humor,
even if not always on purpose.
I wonder if Fox News really believes its slogan about being
fair and balanced and whether Mr. Oreilly
really thinks he does not spin the news.
Here are just a few recent items of interest that
I've never heard mentioned on the
The O'Reilly Factor (or Fox News for that matter):
-
According to a CNN online poll 82 percent of Americans
think going to war with Iraq will provoke another attack on the U.S.,
as opposed to 13 percent who think it will prevent one.
(The only polls mentioned on Fox News are those showing how
much Americans support Bush's war against Iraq,
and even then they omit that the support is only there
because people want to show the world that this country
is behind its President.)
-
When examining telephone calls from Al Qaeda in Germany
before 9/11, there were lots of calls to Saudia Arabia and
Egypt and some other mid-east countries but none to Iraq.
(So why is Iraq accused of aiding the 9/11 terrorists and
not Saudia Arabia for example.)
-
During Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations last week,
the CIA's George Tenet sat behind him.
Supposedly his presence was significant because previously
the CIA had said there was no evidence to link Iraq to
the 9/11 terrorist attack. Some astute observers have
noted that Tenet looked straight ahead throughout the speech
except when Powell talked about the Iraqi terrorist
connection and then he looked down.
-
The Iraqis are not the only ones in flagrant violation of UN resolutions.
For example, UN Resolution 242 from 1967 requires Israel to withdraw
from the Arab territories it occupied that year.
And several years ago after the Security Council endorsed the
World Court condemnation of the United States and order
to terminate the terrorist war against Nicaragua,
the United States vetoed it and the Congress voted to escalate the war.
I don't see anything terribly wrong with only presenting the facts
that support your opinion, but it does bother me when a news
organization does this
and claims to be unbiased.
The question I have is are they doing this with forethought
or are they like orthodox religious people who cannot
distinguish reality from their faith and unconsciously block
any opposing thoughts from entering the minds?
Posted by mjm at
04:52 PM
|
Comments (0)
February 03, 2003
The Iraqi Process.
The editors of
The New Republic
wrote a
dumb editorial
entitled
Time Out
for the issue dated 02.10.03,
where they opine the fact that the "liberals" keep moving the bar
on the conditions for going to war with Iraq.
But I see the situation exactly the opposite.
Paraphrasing from their first paragraph,
originally President Bush said we were going to
war with Iraq because of their links to Al Qaeda.
Then when there was no evidence for that,
he said we were going to war with Iraq because they had nuclear weapons.
Then when there was no evidence for that he said
we were going to war with Iraq
because they had had chemical and biological weapons.
Then when there was no evidence for that ... .
I find it amazing how this administration has used 9/11 to manipulate
public opinion and has bamboozled most of the non-right media and the
Democrats to believe its agenda (or at least not oppose it).
What a bunch of wimps.
There's already talk about how Colin Powell's presentation
of "evidence" to the U.N. will not be definitive,
in an attempt to make it appear that there is some evidence.
It's kind of like what Wall Street does these days with corporate earnings;
lower expectations so you can report that you beat them
and your stock will go up.
And yes, I know Saddam is a bad guy.
But according to Amnesty International there are a dozen or so others
out there who are worse.
Deterrence worked against the Russians
(who were at least as "evil") for 50 years; why not now?
IMO, this is about oil and Israel.
Someone should ask Bush if he would be willing to promise that the US,
including any US citizen or business, will not make any money from
Iraqi oil as a result of our invasion. I'd bet he won't accept.
Posted by mjm at
04:30 PM
|
Comments (0)