Wednesday, September 06, 2006
HE'S ON A ROLL
Keith Olbermann again excoriates Bush and his cronies for their disgusting propaganda. Sometimes the deluge of wingnut lies and spin is so dense that hearing undeniable truths simply stated is like sunlight spearing through cloud cover. What was it Harry Truman said? "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."
JC
Posts
6 comments:
Claus,
As I, and others told you, in 2 Way Politics this morning when you tried to pass this off as PROOF THAT BUSH LIED, this is nothing more than propaganda on Olberman's part. In no way is it proof of anything but Olberman's manipulation of media to make you believe agenda based propaganda. Your fellow cronies might blindly believe this stuff but smart people dont. Its just like you and other liberals to buy into this stuff. I bet subliminal advertising works great on you dummies!
In order for you to have an argument, you need to actually present facts. Nothing Olbermann says is untrue, but I welcome you to actually do some real work to debunk it. I don't know where you were this morning, but I never passed off this video as proof of anything. I told you that the Congressional Research Service report on prewar intel proved that. And that is only the most easily explained example of his lies. The lies that Bush and his team have told would fill miles of pages. It's a shame you don't get it. As a conservative, you've been trained to believe that any criticism of conservative wrongdoing is axiomatically untrue. Which is why, no matter how many times we present Bush lies about terrorism, Iraq, 9/11, the economy, health care, SS, the deficit, KAtrina, etc etc, it is ultimately a wasted effort. Hence, the Truman quote. Olbermann is telling the truth, and you think it's hell.
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah, Claus...
Tell someone who believes anything you say. Olberman used creative manipulation of the truth. Nice try, but its not proof of anything.
Vacreeper,
What are you smoking? LOL
First of all I am a she, not a he.
Second, I never discussed CIA anything with anyone. I dont know who you thought you were talking to, but it wasnt me.
Third, Olberman's piece did not prove anything other than his producers are good at manipulating film to get stupid people to believe what they want them to believe. Neither you or Claus can prove what the video claims. Again, I think subliminal advertising works well on you too.
You enjoy making things up just like your other little buddies, I see. You never did really care about truth though.
AP, you're not making any sense. That commentary did not contain any disputable facts. Olbermann correctly notes that Bush/Cheney et al, have consistently made public statements conflating disagreement with the president's policies with disloyalty to the country itself. The is the worst kind of demagoguery, and if someone had told you during the Clinton presidency that your criticisms of his policies were acts of treason, you would rightly be disgusted, outraged, and angry, as we are now when you and your ilk accuse us of being in league with terrorists and of hating our country.
When Rumsfeld compares war critics to nazi appeasers, when Bush says that his opponents help embolden the enemy, or when Ashcroft says that fighting for our constituionally guaranteed liberties is akin to treason, there is something fundamentally wrong with that administration. I'm assuming that you're not questioning that the above statements were made, as you and I both know those and many others have been.
That is the message Olbermann is sending, and it is a timely and necessary one. In no sense is anything he said untrue, you just don't like the accuracy of the accusation.
I wish all sides had the decency to not directly or indirectly use Hitler to demonize their opponents. Some uses may be worse than others, but non are acceptable. Even if such comparisons are logically defensible, they offend more than persuade, unless the audience is blinded by hate, and imply things that might not be provable.
As for Olbermann, I don't know if all he said is accurate, but it's his opinion, based on how he perceives the statements and behavior of the Bush administration, and he has a right to it. Calling him a propagandist or liar needs better evidence. I know I have no basis for thinking he doesn't at least believe what he says and bases it on good evidence. Besides, he's correct in principle. I think that' important. Unless proof of this "manipulation" is shown, asserting it isn't a good counter argument.
Post a Comment