New rule for Pandering Media Infotainmenteers: You have to answer a couple of questions before you get to spread more lies about Wes Clark
>
General Clark last night on MSNBC's Verdict"All I know is I served 38 years in uniform. I'm proud of my service and I was asked to give my opinion about professional qualifications based on my experience," Clark said. "I served at both levels -- I was a junior officer, I did come back from Vietnam on a stretcher -- and I served as a commander at the highest levels ....
"So I have some appreciation for both levels of command and the qualities it takes at the top. I simply say it's a matter of judgment -- experience, yes, it's important. It shows character and courage, but on the other hand there are other ways to show character and courage."
-- from the AP's account of retired Gen. Wes Clark's appearance
this morning on ABC's Good Morning America
this morning on ABC's Good Morning America
[Note: ABC News's online story has skimpier quotes but has video. I don't know about you, but these days I'd rather hear General Clark's own words rather than undigested Infotainmenteerish renderings.]
Okay now, here's the new rule for the Pandering Media Infotainmenteers: You don't get to say squat about Wes Clark's criticisms of Young Johnny McCranky until you've successfully answered two questions:
(1) Do you know what General Clark actually said?
-- If "no, "then you need to shut the hell up, asshole.
-- If "yes," then you need to stop lying about it, asshole.
The basic point: General Clark took great care not to impugn either Senator McCranky's heroism or his military service. He said, remarkably clearly, that he sees nothing in them that constitute qualifications for the presidency. Are all the men McCranky served with qualified, by virtue of their military service, to be president? And while yes, anyone who survived five and a half years as a Vietnamese POW is unquestionably heroic, does mean all long-term POWs are qualified to be president?
Unlike McCranky, General Clark has long, intensive experience of actual wartime military command.
(2) Four years ago, when Republicans actually did what they are now falsely accusing General Clark of doing, which is to say lying about and trashing the record of a military combat hero, in that case Sen. John Kerry, how much outrage did you, Mr./Ms. Infotainmenteer, express?
-- Based on the record of the infotainmenteering class, the probability is about 99.99 percent that you didn't utter a peep. In all likelihood, you jumped on the bandwagon of slander.
-- Ironically, McCranky himself was one of the few Republicans to voice disgust, but he got over it pretty quickly, and then wasn't much heard from. To this day major elements of the Party of Lies remain diehard believers in the savage campaign of blatant lies conducted against Senator Kerry.
Senator McCranky's brain is apparently now so pickled in corruption, lies, and desperate personal ambition that he has lost contact with truth. Yet he is talking about forming "truth squads." Of course what he means is "lie squads." The one thing his cynical and desperate campaign can't possibly stand is any element of truth. It's all built on lies, and between now and November it will do its best to bury the country miles-deep in them.
posted by KenInNY @ 8:15 AM
4 comments
|
Reddit
4 Comments:
There has to continue to be push-back against the "MSM's" eagerness to assist and abet the McBush campaign's tactics of distortion and intimidation. Thanks for staying on this.
You're absolutely right, W.H. It gets fatiguing, but we can't stop. Thanks for the encouragement.
Ken
Righton. TRUTHTELLING!
Being almost at the bottom of your class DOES NOT get you a plane unless your dad is a senior officer in the Navy. Then crashing 5 or 6 of them DOES NOT QUALIFY YOU TO BE PRESIDENT.
McCain has taken flip-flopin to a new level.
Ann Coulter, (LOOK I'm quoting Ann Coulter!) was righton saying McCain is Lickspittle and not worthy of kissing Bush's backside. Go Ann.
Based on the record of the infotainmenteering class, the probability is about 99.99 percent that you didn't utter a peep. In all likelihood, you jumped on the bandwagon of slander.
In 2004, the Swift Goats were "making claims" about Kerry ranging from cowardice, falsifying reports to get medals, up to shooting himself -- so the corporate tools had to "report the controversy" without bothering to check if the claims were bullshit.
In 2008, Clark makes a claim, not questioning the facts of McCain's military record, but whether that record has any applicability to the administrative demands of the presidency, and the corporate media tools act as if an unspeakable act of blasphemy has been committed against McCain's unquestionable sainted biographical story. The BBQ sauce fanboys are so far up McCain's ass with their hero worship it would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
It reminds me of the 1996 election where the media, and Bob Dole, never went five minutes without reminding us about Bob Dole's war wound.
The Repig urge to deify their presidential candidates, especially with regard to military matters, is downright creepy and unbefitting of a democracy. It seems they'd be happier being ruled by a monarchy or a military junta.
I guess it springs from the authoritarian culture of corporations and fundamentalist churches -- you NEVER question the divinity and perfection of the guy at the top of the heirarchy; your job as a peasant is to gaze in worshipful adoration, believe what you are told without question and proselytize to others.
We're not electing a Sun King or a divine Emperor here, it's a job interview to select the best administrator for the executive branch of the US government. The obedient little media tools are supposed to be skeptical thinkers, not pathetic cheerleaders.
Post a Comment
<< Home