Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Fox retard Neal Cavuto calls Paul Krugman a liar (then calls Krugman "snide"), while a former prosecutor lays out the case against Bush & Co.


From the wilds of who-knows-where? (okay, they would have to be computer-equipped wilds), Howie has passed on a couple of links to posts you'll want to know about. I'm just passing them on to you now.


Yesterday Paul Krugman ventured into the jungle of Fox "News" for a chinwag with (gulp) Neal Cavuto about a piece he's written for Rolling Stone on the massive redistribution of income in the U.S. over the last several decades, a subject he's written a number of NYT columns about.

Now Neal Cavuto may not be the dumbest person on the planet, but it's not for want of trying (and there's so much competition right there in his own place of employment). He might have engaged Krugman in a discussion based on his (Cavuto's) belief that the income gap between haves and have-nots has been relatively unchanged over time. Of course since it's not true, and since Cavuto doesn't deal in facts to begin with, that was probably never in the cards. But probably Krugman wasn't expecting Cavuto to lead with: "Here’s what I’m saying that you’re doing: You are lying to people. That’s what I think that you’re doing." And then, without ever getting around to telling us what those "lies" are, to accuse Krugman of being "snide."

Think Progress has video and a transcript.


Eriposte posts at some length on The Left Coaster about a new book by former U.S. attorney Elizabeth de la Vega, U.S. v. Bush, which lays out a case, more or less paralleling the fraud case that the government brought successfully against the top Enron defendants, for a criminal indictment of the Bush adminstration for intentionally deceiving the country into going to war in Iraq.

She writes in her introduction:
In other words, in legal terms, there is probable cause to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. Probable cause is the standard of proof required for a grand jury to return an indictment. Consequently, we have more than sufficient evidence to warrant indictment of the President and his advisers.

Do I expect someone to promptly indict the President and his aides? No. I am aware of the political impediments and constitutional issues relating to the indictment of a sitting president. Do those impediments make this merely an empty exercise? Absolutely not.


At 6:38 PM, Blogger john said...

Did you folks see this? He's the senator who is number one on google search! I wish Howie was around to help me understand what Santorum's speech meant since he talked for a friggin' hour! He sounds kind of ED.

After Gates was confirmed, Santorum -- who lost his seat in the November election amid a wave of unhappiness about the Iraq war -- took to the Senate floor.

He delivered a nearly hour long speech, warning of the dangers of not confronting "Islamic fascism" and its budding alliances with anti-American countries such as Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba.

"We are sleepwalking through the storm," Santorum said. "How do those who deny this evil propose to save us from these people? By negotiating through the U.N. or directly with Iran? By firing Don Rumsfeld, (and) now getting rid of John Bolton? That's going to solve the problem?"

He said he felt Gates is not "up to the task."

At 7:18 AM, Blogger keninny said...

I know I hadn't heard about this, and that's propbably the point. Senator Rick is kind of a ghost waving his arms frantically from the mists.

This is the sort of thing we witness more often with House members who can be seen ranting in the wee hours on C-SPAN. But I guess old "Man Bites Dog" Rick is showing that as long as he can still flash that "Prop. of the U.S. Senate" pinkie ring, they can't keep him from talking, especially in a lame-duck session where the (departing) leadership has already decided ain't nothin' more gonna happen here!

As for the rhetoric, it's a line that the Far, Far, No FARTHER Right has been peddling for a while. Remember Newt Gingrich telling us breathlessly that World War III had already begun? And of course one of the storylines being written about the 2006 congressional election is that the Republicans failed because they weren't conservative enough. (In a way true, actually. You can hardly call much of the Bush agenda "conservative" in the strict sense, and a lot of authentically conservative voters apparently had enough.)

So I say maybe the brain-challenged soon-to-be-ex-junior senator from Pennsylvania (hmm, I know I just used "brain-challenged" for CNN's Neal Cavuto--well, what are you going to do?) is trying to stake a claim to leadership in the New Loony Bloc. Somehow the prospect of a wave of national sentiment rising up for him doesn't scare me.

And then again, in all likelihood the senator actually BELIEVES these things he says. He may just have felt that it was desperately important to get them on the record while "we are sleepwalking through the storm."


At 10:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Once I played 12sky, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have twelve sky Gold. He gave me some 12sky gold, he said that I could buy twelvesky Gold, but I did not have money, then I played it all my spare time. From then on, I got some 12Sky Silver Coins, if I did not continue to play it, I can sell 12 sky gold to anyone who want.


Post a Comment

<< Home