Posted on 11/08/2001 9:42:00 PM PST by Howlin
I met this slick hick once. He struck me as a pathological liar and devoid that had to have a script to communicate. I bet he believes every word of this. Watch him, as time passes he will become even more strange.
It has been posted as its own thread.
any time he wants to associate himself with what is going on now, i.e., anything succesful or that Bush might get credit for, he uses the word "we." "We will win this." "We can do this." He tries to horn in on anything Bush does.
You know, that really stood out to me in this pathetic speech of Ex-president Scumbag's. He's always done it, true, but this time it leapt out. Maybe because of the stark contrast, for the first time, with Ex-president Scumbag and a successor president, a spectacle we didn't have to barf over until 1.20.01 (a most blessed day in the annals of world history).
Of course it is. He just forgot to add the preamble: "underage Asian porno filmed in Montana " before "web sites."
That really makes me curious - how have you negotiated your way to articles and posts on FR? Have you used only the "Latest Articles" page? (My PC takes forever to load that.) I LOVE the Latest Posts page, especially since JimRob added the Breaking News and Front Page or whatever the second heading is.
At the head of the pack.
Just think what a great example you are setting for your whelp by FReeping before noon AND having her lunch ready! See, it IS possible to be a VRWC member and do the chores, too. =)
What I don't understand is WHY he says things like that and why he thinks he might get away with them. Since I was already on the internet -- well, I will confess it was AOL -- when O.J. killed Nicole, I just KNEW it had to be a lie. I mean, if I, an comupter illiterate could be "online" then, how could there only have been 50 sites just a few years before.
BTW, you may be interested in THIS
I don't care where he goes - he just needs to go the HELL away!
Can that possibly be true?
Yes, that is an interesting question. I know the internet grew fast but it seems to me I was plunking around compuserve when Bush was Prez.
Let me know if you get a difinitive answer on this. Thanks.
I once posted a John Edwards speech highlighting the word power which he used so often. One of his friends was peeved at me. The truth hurts.
It is pretty appalling.
For the record, I noted some readers didn't catch my not very prominent note that W's use of the personal pronouns, as with blubba's, covered only the first ten paragraphs, not the entire speech.
Gene Lyons: Right-wing media continue to savage Clinton
Many things have changed in this country since Sept. 11, but not the brazen distortions of the right-wing media nor the craven failure of "mainstream" journalists to confront them. The result is a decadent national press unwilling to stand up for the ethical standards that supposedly govern the "profession" of journalism, and a steep decline in the quality of public discourse in our democracy.
Last week saw yet another ludicrous, but ugly controversy stirred up by journalistic fraud. As usual, the malefactors were the Washington Times, the National Review, Fox News, Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and his army of talk radio imitators. The hyperventilating shills of the World Wrestling Federation have nothing on this bunch. Even a normally skeptical Democrat-Gazette columnist got taken for a ride. Also as usual, the immediate target was Bill Clinton.
Next time you're flabbergasted by some preposterous lie in the gutter press of Baghdad or Cairo, remember that this bunch duped millions of credulous boobs into believing that Wicked Bill told a college audience, as one outraged letter to the Washington Times put it, that "America got what it deserves" at the hands of Arab terrorists. Or, as the Democrat-Gazette columnist wrote, that he delivered a "rant of justifiable homicide" which "vindicated" Osama bin Laden. The fierce intellectuals of the National Review declared that having "pardoned the unpardonable, now [Clinton] has justified the unjustifiable."
Remember too that hardly anybody in our vigilant national media pointed out what an alert golden retriever would have suspected, that the whole flap was caused by a comically grotesque distortion of what Clinton actually said. Here's how it happened: on November 7, Clinton spoke at his alma mater, Georgetown University. A next day front page account in the Washington Times was misleadingly headlined "Clinton says U.S. is paying for its past." The article, written by one Joseph Curl, turned his speech upside down, insinuating that an inconsequential (and factually indisputable) aside he'd made about 19th century mistreatment of slaves and native Americans constituted an excuse for terrorism.
Almost the direct opposite is true. "I am just a citizen," Clinton said at the outset, "and as a citizen I support the efforts of President Bush, the national security team, and our allies in fighting the current terrorist threat. I believe we all should." Clinton brought up past atrocities only to illustrate his point that terrorism is morally abhorrent and militarily futile. "The killing of noncombatants for economic, political, or religious reasons," he observed "has a very long history, as long as organized combat itself, and yet, it has never succeeded as a military strategy."
At no point, did Clinton suggest any causal or moral connection whatsoever between America's ancient sins and contemporary terrorist acts. He did say that this country is "still paying a price" for its past. Who can deny it? But he also said that "the people who died represent, in my view, not only the best of America, but the best of the world. The terrorists killed people who came to America not to die, but dream, from every continent, from dozens of countries, most every religion on the face of the earth, including Islam. They, those that died in New York, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania are part of a very different world and a very different worldview than those who killed them." He described the campaign against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda as a "struggle for the soul of the 21st century."
In a pungent essay on his Daily Howler website, Bob Somerby has shown that the phony claim that Clinton "basically said we are getting what we deserve in the terrorist attack," as a GOP spokesman parroted on CNN later that day, was created by techniques journalists profess to abhor: yanking partial quotes out of context and the dark art of malicious paraphrase. (Anybody who doubts me and wants to fight about it can find Clinton's entire speech online at Salon.com or the Georgetown University website. The rest of you can stick to the time-honored "Voices" tactic of name-calling. "Clinton apologist," with its heady whiff of Stalinist orthodoxy, is the one Washington professionals prefer.)
Even the Clinton-phobic pundit Andrew Sullivan, after denouncing the former president before troubling himself to read the speech, subsequently admitted that the Washington Times account was "appallingly slanted."
Yet nary a syllable was emitted by the so-called "liberal Establishment" press. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz produced a bemused item about the right's obsession with Bad Bill, but nowhere hinted at the Times' unethical methods. It's simply not done. Two reasons: first, it's seen as futile, like starting a campaign to convince 20 million morons that pro wrestling is fixed. Second, fear. The crack-pot ideologues of the far right are shameless, relentless, and well-funded. Why provoke them merely to defend democratic values?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.