pageok
pageok
pageok
Regrettably, Rhodes Returns to Radio

Almost as soon as Air America stopped carrying Randi Rhodes, Clear Channel picked up her program. In my colunm for today's Rocky Mountain News, I bemoan the fact that she attracts a much larger audience than did thoughtful radio hosts such as Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo.

neurodoc:
I bemoan the fact that she attracts a much larger audience than did thoughtful radio hosts such as Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo.
Another validation of Gresham's Law.
4.19.2008 5:33pm
Dave N (mail):
Randi Rhodes and Michael Savage are made for each other. Both are loathesome human beings who give their putative philosophies bad names.
4.19.2008 5:33pm
Fub:
From your column:
Indeed, the fact that Clear Channel has made 760 into a "progressive" talk station, with lots of Air America programming, demonstrates what has always been obvious to the nonparanoid: Clear Channel's objective is to make money, and Clear Channel will do so with whatever mix of programming and hosts will bring in the largest audiences, and hence the largest advertising revenue.
Bingo!

The common misconception about commercial broadcasting exists even among the nonparanoid: that the broadcaster's business is to deliver what the broadcaster believes is the best programming to its audience. The obvious economic truth is that the broadcaster's business is to deliver the eyes and ears of the largest audience possible to the program sponsors. The sponsors, not the audience, directly pay the broadcaster.

Program hosts come to broadcasters with a portfolio of Arbitron or other ratings of audience size in various markets, and in many cases with sponsors already signed. The broadcaster wants to know "how much can you make for me?" This is no different a consideration than in any other area of employment.
4.19.2008 5:43pm
hawkins:

But stations follow the ratings, and the ratings indicate, sadly, that the wild exaggerations and inventions of Rhodes attract more listeners than does the thoughtful analysis of serious people like Cuomo and Hart.


"Wild exaggerations" are much more common on talk radio than "thoughtful analysis."
4.19.2008 6:08pm
another commenter (mail):
Years ago, I listened to a public radio program in the western mass/northern NY area called "Mario and Me" that featured Mario Cuomo. I thought Cuomo was quite good. As you say, his comments were always thoughtful.
4.19.2008 6:15pm
sef:
Little confused, a few days ago it was objecting to Professor Yoo on the basis he was pro-war crimes / pro-torture agenda was bad on the basis free speech. Now, however, objection to Randi Rhodes on the basis of her comments is good. Not sure where the VC consistentcy is.

The market have spoken, Rush &Rhodes, windbags both, have jobs due to good ratings.
4.19.2008 6:16pm
Scote (mail):
I prefer Rachel Maddox, but Rohdes shouldn't have been fired. The right gets away with outright lies ( specialty of Rush and BillO) and Rohdes can't even do tasteless standup without getting bounced. Think the lies are a bigger issue that Rhodes' bad taste.
4.19.2008 6:19pm
dre (mail):
The right gets away with outright lies ( specialty of Rush and BillO)



Name one lie for either person provide link.
4.19.2008 7:47pm
Smokey:
Randi Rhodes and Michael Savage are made for each other.
True dat.

Also, last year I did a lot of driving. One afternoon I was flipping channels and came across Randi Rhodes. Never heard of her before that. Ms Rhodes was reading several letters supposedly written and signed by G.W. Bush, authorizing any means necessary, including outright torture, to get info from Islamic captives. Another presidential 'letter,' again supposedly signed by Bush, spoke about a secret plan to take over all of Iraq's oil resources.

The putative Bush letters were full of grammatical errors, inflammatory language, and the letters she read sounded like you would expect, coming from a Michael Savage clone of the Left. The letters Rhodes was reading were clearly bogus; only a Daily Kos true believer would put any credence in Rhodes' story line, and if what she was reading was for real, every newspaper in America would have generated a lot of ink over them. Yet Rhodes passed her letters off as being genuine, and she kept repeating that they were signed by the President: "Right here! It's his signature!!" And so on, hyperventilating all the while.

Not that people across the political spectrum don't lie. But Rhodes is at least as dishonest as anyone else on the air. But she probably tells the hippies exactly what they want to hear.
4.19.2008 8:04pm
Smokey:
The right gets away with outright lies ( specialty of Rush and BillO)
dre responded:
Name one lie for either person provide link.
heh. You've been called, Scote.

Gonna raise? Or fold?
4.19.2008 8:09pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
Howard Stern set the pace for modern radio. Listeners want to be shocked and knocked off balance, not informed. The young "Iron My Shirt" men at a Hillary appearance in New Hampshire worked for a morning radio show.

I confess when I read "Gary Hart" in the post, I immediately thought of his "Monkey Business Crew" fiasco.
4.19.2008 8:37pm
Robert R.:

I just want to know when Patricia Calhoun is going to replace Peter Boyles as the host of Colorado Inside Out. I don't agree with her, either, but she's done a better job as moderator than Boyles ever did. Maybe it's the difference between being an editor and being a radio talk show host.

And when are they going to get rid of that vile hatemonger Danni Newsum (sp?).

Of course, I haven't watched the show in eight years, so maybe it's better now.
4.19.2008 8:46pm
Seriously?:

Name one lie for either person provide link.


I'm not sure if this is serious. In case it is, how about here, here, here, here, here, and here.
4.19.2008 8:50pm
Robert R.:

Maybe I was a bit young and idealistic when I listened to talk radio in the 1980s and 1990s (eg: Peter Boyles, Mike Rosen, Greg Dobbs, etc.) but it seems that the quality declined after Rush Limbaugh became popular in the early 1990s. And I say that as somebody who was a conservative Republican for much of that time.

Before, it seemed that the hosts would be willing to engage the callers in some dialog. But along came Rush, who allowed the caller to get in one sentence, and then went off on a five minute monologue -- over and over again.

Now, talk radio hosts -- both Left and Right -- are more concerned with berating and belittling their callers for ratings.

I haven't listened to talk radio in eight years, but I'm going to guess it's gotten worse.
4.19.2008 8:52pm
BChurch (mail):
"Gonna raise? Or fold?"

Looks like a straight flush to me.
4.19.2008 9:26pm
CDR D (mail):
>>>Name one lie for either person provide link.



I'm not sure if this is serious. In case it is, how about here, here, here, here, here, and here.<<<


Okay, cool. That takes care of O'Really.

How about Limbaugh?

Got some Oberfuhrer clips on him?
4.19.2008 9:48pm
Smokey:
Hmm-m. A straight flush? OK, since I actually listened to Randi Rhodes inventing facts for part of one afternoon, I figured I could see what passes for accusations of 'lying' by the Left. [Disclaimer: I listen to O'Reilly and/or Limbaugh less than I listen to Randi Rhodes. Which means pretty much zero.]

O'Reilly leads off with this 'lie' [well, according to the odious George Soros-financed Media Matters, this is a 'lie']:
O'Reilly claimed that former President Bill Clinton's presidential library gives [Hillary] "access to money because Bill Clinton's got a checkbook that he can write anything off against that library he wants." In fact, the National Archives and Records Administration took over the management and funding of the library after its November 18, 2004, grand opening.
Fine. Maybe Media Matters folks are mind readers, and knew exactly what O'Reilly meant. But I doubt you'd convict anyone on perjury for that. See, this isn't quite up to the standard of someone repeatedly stating that she ran through sniper fire in Bosnia. Also, keep in mind that this is the very same Clinton Library that played heavy-duty politics recently by denying the media access to Hillary's archives until *ahem* after next November -- and then it denied that the Clintons had any influence on that decision.

Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

So my bad, I only skimmed the rest of the Media Matters propaganda, and looked for any 'lies' told by Limbaugh. Seems there aren't any in that 'straight flush.' In fact, none of the links even mentions Limbaugh. Slate has their Limbaugh-free...
Whopper Archive:

Feb. 7, 2003: Saddam Hussein
Jan. 31, 2003: Karl Rove
Jan. 23, 2003: Bill Frist
Jan. 17, 2003: Naji Sabri
Jan. 10, 2003: Rod Paige
Even going back through Slate's 2002 and 2001 archives, there's no Limbaugh. And the YouTube videos? They're all O'Reilly [and for all I know, O'Reilly is a fibber -- or maybe he just talks out his ass like a lot of folks do; that's all he seems to be doing in the quote above]. I suspect that plenty of folks comb through every utterance of Limbaugh, desperately hoping to find a fib. If Limbaugh is a liar, it should be easy to find proof.

So. Care to try again? Seriously. Because what you thought was a spade in that 'straight flush' must have been a club. That happens sometimes when you tar everyone with the same brush, no?
4.19.2008 10:29pm
Zacharias (mail):
Face it you PC liberals: there are a lot of us out here who love Randi Rhodes. Why else do you think she's still on the air?
4.19.2008 10:40pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
Complaining about a liberal being on the air when this piece just came out is pretty F'in rich:

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration's war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.





Let's see... Randi Rhodes on radio, versus a cadre of govt-sponsored retired generals on FOX News, ABC, CNN, etc. etc.

Yeah that's "fair and balanced"...
4.19.2008 11:16pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

"It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,' " Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
4.19.2008 11:19pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
Oh, and I'm sure all the "Libertarians" amongst you will be screaming bloody murder about this, won't you???
4.19.2008 11:20pm
BChurch (mail):
Well Smokey, I think your challenge was to provide a single link to any lie by either O'Reilly or Limbaugh. But if you now insist on both, maybe start here:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200803280011?f=s_search

I don't really have the patience to sift through the archives, that's just the best from the first 15 (of 1071) when you search "Limbaugh" on Media Matters. Even assuming 90% of them are not outright lies, you've got over 100 to choose from. But I'm sure you didn't really expect that someone whose job has been propaganda for over 10 years would have a spotlessly honest record, did you?

I guess some people just aren't capable of calling a spade a spade
4.19.2008 11:54pm
LM (mail):
Smokey,

Were you seriously saying you couldn't find any Rush Limbaugh lies on Media Matters*?

[*The final example is incredibly lame and isn't included to show lying. I threw it in because it made me laugh. Media Matters' refutation of that statement should retire the trophy for damning with faint praise.]
4.20.2008 12:16am
DonP (mail):
You'll exscuse some of us that may not find Media Matters, an organization originally founded and funded by the Clintons to counterbalance the press coverage of their sundry and various scandals and pecadilloes, as an "authoritative or trustworthy source" on much of anything.

As for Olberman, I'm glad he set a record last week for the longest period he's held a job in broadcasting without getting fired. His one sided anti O'Reilly diatribes are the primary reason he has any ratings at all. He's the hero of MSNBC but based on their line up and the numbers they deliver (or more accurately the numbers they don't deliver) that isn't saying a whole lot.

You may not like Fox news or Limbaugh, but based on the ratings books I see and the overnights, America seriously disagrees with you on that.

O'Reilly regularly pulls 3 to 5 times the viewers that Olberman has and Rush has more listeners in one hour than Air America, at its peak, had in an entire week.
4.20.2008 1:46am
Jason F:
I don't care if Media Matters was founded by George Soros, Bill Clinton, or Rocky the Flying Squirrel. They presented repeated instances where Limabugh or O'Reilly said one thing, and the facts were otherwise. If you think they got the facts wrong, say so. Otherwise, you might consider doing the gentlemanly thing and admitting that you were incorrect. The world won't end.

And so what if O'Reilly and Limbaugh are popular? I don't think anybody disputes their popularity (though many of us regret it).
4.20.2008 2:16am
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
Let's see... Randi Rhodes on radio, versus a cadre of govt-sponsored retired generals on FOX News, ABC, CNN, etc. etc.

What, you mean retired generals have a relationship with the military?

Heavens.
4.20.2008 2:26am
LM (mail):
DonP,

You'll exscuse some of us that may not find Media Matters, an organization originally founded and funded by the Clintons to counterbalance the press coverage of their sundry and various scandals and pecadilloes, as an "authoritative or trustworthy source" on much of anything.

I understand. The truth hurts.

The challenge was made and repeated to point out one lie Rush has told. I linked to six quick ones out of hundreds. Show me that all six contain misquotes or other fabrications and I promise never to link to Media Matters again on this site. Otherwise, the evidence for Rush's lying stands for itself.
4.20.2008 2:36am
Ben S2 (mail):

The challenge was made and repeated to point out one lie Rush has told. I linked to six quick ones out of hundreds. Show me that all six contain misquotes or other fabrications and I promise never to link to Media Matters again on this site. Otherwise, the evidence for Rush's lying stands for itself.


And there you have it: the point of Media Matters. Since Media Research Center is routinely documenting media bias, Soros set up an organization to provide a smoke screen for the overwhelmingly liberal media by making hundreds of claims about Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. And the leftists are going to demand that we refute an entire web site.

I'm not playing that game.

No mistake Rush Limbaugh or O'Reilly has made comes close to any of the infamous lies of CBS (Rathergate) CNN (nerve gas) ABC (Food Lion) NBC (rockets on vehicles), NY Times (Jason Blair, let alone Walter Duranty) or the AP (fauxtographs). All of these were deliberate, orchestrated lies with political goals and Limbaugh and O'Reilly simply never engaged in anything like that. The left has repeatedly embraced liars and never purged them from their ranks, and so you've got to live with that fact.
4.20.2008 4:52am
Randy R. (mail):
"You may not like Fox news or Limbaugh, but based on the ratings books I see and the overnights, America seriously disagrees with you on that. "

Yup, that's why Bush is still so popular in America. Along with all the Republicans.

"The left has repeatedly embraced liars and never purged them from their ranks, and so you've got to live with that fact."

Let's see. Rather was indeed fired for Rathergate, or at least forced to resign early. Jason Blair was a lone individual who was fired by the NY Times, so there is some purging of wrongdoers. When has Hannity or Limbaugh been fired or even reprimanded for anything they have said?

Okay -- perhaps they don't outright lie. I'll buy that one. (Except that I loved that one lie about the roving lesbians who rape men). But outright distortions? Virtually every single day. But that's okay -- because they are distortions that the right loves.
4.20.2008 5:55am
Smokey:
LM:
The challenge was made and repeated to point out one lie Rush has told. I linked to six quick ones out of hundreds.
Man, that's tedious work going through the Media Matters' futile attempt to hang the 'lie' label on Limbaugh.

Randy R. hit the nail on the head:
Okay -- perhaps they don't outright lie. I'll buy that one.
None of the Media Matters breathless articles is reporting what could credibly be called a 'lie.' They are opinions. If that's all that Media Matters can come up with on someone who has broadcast nationally for 20 hours a week for the past twenty years, then Limbaugh has to be one of the most honest people on the planet.

There is no credible comparison between Limbaugh and Hillary, or Dan Rather, or Obama, or the NY Times, or McCain, or the Clintons' propaganda organ Media Matters, for that matter. Every one of them engages in much more 'distortion' than Limbaugh.

Some folks seem confused about the difference between a casual opinion and a "lie." We already know about Mrs Clinton's cattle futures lying, and her Bosnia lying. And remember when Slick looked us in the eye on TV, shook his bony finger at the country, and stated:
"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time — never. These allegations are false."
See the difference?
4.20.2008 9:30am
Zombie Richard Feynman (mail) (www):
Sweet Jebus, people are seriously arguing Limbaugh and O'Reilly are sober truth tellers (though they do make "mistakes"), while the em-ess-em lies constantly?

I also love how poeple are saying "Well Media Matters = Soros, so I'm not gonna discuss what it says." You people probably think those swift boat guys were brave truth-tellers, eh?

I listen to Rush when I can, and he is willing to put a square peg into a round hole if it helps his narrative. I'd imagine Ms. Rhodes does the same. When you start saying this "I know you are but what am I?" stuff, take a look at yourself. You just might find you are acting like a crazy person.
4.20.2008 10:53am
Mahan Atma (mail):
"What, you mean retired generals have a relationship with the military?

Heavens."


Did you read the article? The problem is not the mere fact that retired generals have a relationship with the military.

It's the fact that the government exploited and expanded its relationship to the retired generals in order to have the generals repeat government-contrived propaganda in the guise of their own opinions, with no party disclosing that fact to the media outlets or their viewers.

Look at the documents. You have emails with "talking points" (read: LIES) coming from the government, quoted verbatim in op-eds and on air. In exchange, the retired generals were special access to high-level meetings and officials going right up to Rumsfeld. And if they dared contradict the govt "talking points", the access was pulled. Simultaneously, you have many of the retired generals lobbying for defense contractors.

Conflicts of interest up the wazoo, yet nowhere being disclosed.

So all this is just peachy with you?
4.20.2008 12:18pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

So all this is just peachy with you?


No. I find it astonishing and disturbing that you find it even faintly surprising that retired generals are repeating things they hear from the government, or that the DoD has an interest in seeing that these generals have current information, or that the DoD tells them this information, or that when they do, it's the story as DoD sees it.

As I said, "heavens!" I'll extend that to "who would ever have thought?"

Your assertion that these "talking points" are, ipso facto, "lies" says more about your intellectual capabilities and personal biases than about the generals.

Tell me, can you bathe and dress yourself, or do you have assistance, or are you living in a group home?
4.20.2008 2:35pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
Charlie (Colorado) says:
"I find it astonishing and disturbing that you find it even faintly surprising that retired generals are repeating things they hear from the government..."


Oh I don't find it surprising at all. But something doesn't have to be "surprising" to be outrageously wrong and immoral.

Charlie (Colorado) says:
... or that the DoD has an interest in seeing that these generals have current information, or that the DoD tells them this information, or that when they do, it's the story as DoD sees it."



Again, you are ignoring the crucial fact here: All parties involved were hiding the fact that the "information" came from the government. If, as you claim, this is simply the DoD trying to make sure people have accurate information, then why do they have to keep it a secret???


Charlie (Colorado) says:
"Your assertion that these "talking points" are, ipso facto, "lies" says more about your intellectual capabilities and personal biases than about the generals.


Well then, let's look at a few statements from the generals themselves:

Example 1, from the horse's mouth:

"It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,' " Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.


Example 2, from the horse's mouth:

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. "This was a coherent, active policy," he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

"Night and day," Mr. Allard said, "I felt we'd been hosed."


Example 3, from the horse's mouth:

One trip participant, General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly "artificial" that he joked to another group member that they were on "the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq," a reference to Mr. Romney's infamous claim that American officials had "brainwashed" him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965, while he was governor of Michigan.





Example 4, from the horse's mouth:

Re the situation in Iraq: "I saw immediately in 2003 that things were going south," General Vallely, one of the Fox analysts on the trip, recalled in an interview with The Times.

The Pentagon, though, need not have worried.

"You can't believe the progress," General Vallely told Alan Colmes of Fox News upon his return. He predicted the insurgency would be "down to a few numbers" within months.

"We could not be more excited, more pleased," Mr. Cowan told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. There was barely a word about armor shortages or corrupt Iraqi security forces. And on the key strategic question of the moment — whether to send more troops — the analysts were unanimous.

"I am so much against adding more troops," General Shepperd said on CNN.



Charlie (Colorado) says:
"Tell me, can you bathe and dress yourself, or do you have assistance, or are you living in a group home?"


Tell me, can you make an argument without resorting to ad hominems?
4.20.2008 3:02pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
Some more examples for you:

"We knew we had extraordinary access," said Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor.

Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that "some four-star could call up and say, 'Kill that contract.' " For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq's security forces. "I know a snow job when I see one," he said. He did not share this on TV.


Another example:

Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling "very disappointed" after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being "manipulated" to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public


Another example:

"I'm an old intel guy," said one analyst. (The transcript omits speakers' names.) "And I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is Psyops. Now most people may hear that and they think, 'Oh my God, they're trying to brainwash.' "

"What are you, some kind of a nut?" Mr. Rumsfeld cut in, drawing laughter. "You don't believe in the Constitution?"
4.20.2008 3:09pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Ah yes, you are referring to the article from the New York Times, the same one that was so very uninterested in alternative motives when it had six retired generals blasting Rumsfield.

You're beating a dead tree, here.
4.20.2008 5:37pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
"Ah yes, you are referring to the article from the New York Times, the same one that was so very uninterested in alternative motives when it had six retired generals blasting Rumsfield.

You're beating a dead tree, here."



The article is extensively sourced to hard documents -- memos, emails, transcripts, etc. If you don't trust the writing, go look at the documents themselves, they're online.
4.20.2008 5:46pm
LM (mail):
Zombie Richard Feynman said it better than I could. But just in case there are any credulous types who might believe the evasive non-responses to the Rush lies I linked, I'll answer Smokey's, which was typical:

None of the Media Matters breathless articles is reporting what could credibly be called a 'lie.' They are opinions.

From one of those breathless Media Matters articles:

From the June 17 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: The [9-11 Commission] report said that Mohamed Atta did meet with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001. We've known this for a long time.

From the 9-11 Commission "Staff Statement 16":

We have examined the allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available -- including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting -- we do not believe that such a meeting occurred.

Did Media Matters misquote Rush or the 9/11 Report? Otherwise, that's an "opinion" about as much as "I never had sex with that woman" is an opinion.
4.20.2008 6:03pm
UHLawdog:
Re: April 9, 2001 issue above.

LM, I think you're conflating "mistake of fact" with "lie."

Of course, for the Media Matters crowd, those terms evidently are synonymous, given the "Bush lied, children died" nonsense. Being wrong on the facts doesn't mean you're lying about them.
4.20.2008 6:19pm
LM (mail):

The difference between a mistake and a lie is intent. Except in the rare instance when somebody admits a lie, intent has to be inferred. Any random misstatement might be a mistake. A hundred misstatements with no particular ideological bias might be mistakes. A long history of misstatements erring in the same ideological direction is no mistake.
4.20.2008 8:03pm
CDR D (mail):
videlicet:

Media Matters.
4.20.2008 8:27pm
Elais:
'Bush lied, people died' is catchy, but not nonsense.

The usual 'conservatives are never wrong, liberals always are' tone I get these days IS nonsense .
4.20.2008 8:29pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

Tell me, can you make an argument without resorting to ad hominems?


Yes, but sometimes a sharp blow is useful it bringing someone to their senses.

In the mean time, Max Boot makes the same points. It's simply stupid to think that the Pentagon doesn't try to get its version out, and even more stupid to think they wouldn't do so through retired military members known to be in contact with the news people and known to be sympathetic. Either you actually are silly enough to believe this is deeply wrong, in which case my question could be a real concern --- or you're simply mendacious.

You pick.
4.20.2008 8:41pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):

Tell me, can you make an argument without resorting to ad hominems?


Yes, but sometimes a sharp blow is useful it bringing someone to their senses.

In the mean time, Max Boot makes the same points. It's simply stupid to think that the Pentagon doesn't try to get its version out, and even more stupid to think they wouldn't do so through retired military members known to be in contact with the news people and known to be sympathetic. Either you actually are silly enough to believe this is deeply wrong, in which case my question could be a real concern --- or you're simply mendacious.

You pick.
4.20.2008 8:41pm
LM (mail):

videlicet:

Media Matters.

That's fine. I don't care what you think of Media Matters. But unless you can show where they misquoted Rush Limbaugh or the source Limbaugh misquoted, it has nothing to do with this issue.
4.20.2008 9:03pm
Smokey:
Zombie Richard Feynman:
You people probably think those swift boat guys were brave truth-tellers, eh?
Nah. They were question-askers: "Why won't John Kerry sign his DoD Standard Form 180, opening his military record like GWB did?"

To this day, Kerry refuses to sign his SF-180. Maybe he doesn't want his Dishonorable Discharge from the Navy -- for traveling to Hanoi during the Vietnam War and giving the enemy aid and comfort -- to become public.
4.20.2008 9:45pm
CDR D (mail):
>>>The difference between a mistake and a lie is intent. Except in the rare instance when somebody admits a lie, intent has to be inferred. Any random misstatement might be a mistake. A hundred misstatements with no particular ideological bias might be mistakes. A long history of misstatements erring in the same ideological direction is no mistake.
<<<


What you said.
4.20.2008 10:16pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
"It's simply stupid to think that the Pentagon doesn't try to get its version out, and even more stupid to think they wouldn't do so through retired military members known to be in contact with the news people and known to be sympathetic."


As i've said once already, I'm not the least surprised to see the government doing this, and I always figured it was precisely what was going on. BUT THE FACT THAT SOMETHING IS NOT SURPRISING DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.

I'm not surprised people murder each other every day, and one would be stupid to think it doesn't happen; THAT DOES NOT MEAN MURDER IS EXCUSABLE.

And systematically spreading lies to gin up support for a war is not excusable either...

How funny that you completely ignored the numerous quotes from several of the generals themselves stating that the government was using this program to spread blatant lies! This after claiming my statement was "more about my intellectual capabilities and personal biases than the generals themselves" -- Hilarious!!

Obviously you hadn't actually read the article...
4.20.2008 11:14pm
Hoosier:
Wow! This thread degenerated quickly.

(And whenever I hear the name Randi Rhodes, I think Ozzy Osborne's original guitarist.)
4.21.2008 1:02am
Tony Tutins (mail):
Smokey: talk to the Boston Globe. After Kerry released his naval records to them, they confirmed the records corroborated his story. They were more interested in his mediocre college grades.
4.21.2008 3:52am
rarango (mail):
Seems to me that Ms. Rhoades is a master at marketing herself--If it takes shock and awe to do that, more power to her. These type of folks have been around since the founding of the republic--they represent the fringe elements of the electorate (thank godess).

As for the NYT fizzle on the "scandal" of retired generals, Max Boot does a reasonable job in dissecting it and John Podhoretz pilesl on. And as for retired generals, at least one of the posts on them still has General Wayne Downing's picture up--General Downing died last year of meningitis--a real loss as Wayne Downing was a real soldier.
4.21.2008 10:27am
Adeez (mail):
It's oh so amusing to see VC commenters beat up on a patriotic veteran!
4.21.2008 11:03am
CJColucci:
Talk radio is a slum.
In other news, Vatican sources reveal that Pope Benedict XVI is a Roman Catholic.
4.21.2008 12:12pm
Mahan Atma (mail):
Gee, no wonder Max Boot sees nothing wrong with govt-sponsored sock puppets in the media. Turns out that he has a history as a sock puppet himself:

Before he was a prestigious military policy writer, Boot was simply a generic rightwing hack at The Wall Street Journal's hack-laden editorial page. While there he, among other things, wrote an editorial attacking public health officials that was edited by tobacco lobbyist Steven Milloy.

The only reason we know anything about this is that it happens to have come up in tobacco-related litigation. It's possible, in principle, that when Boot was writing rightwing regulatory policy journalism for the Journal he just so happened to let one of his pieces be edited by a lobbyist and that that piece just so happened to have come up in a lawsuit. Much more likely, however, is that he did this on various occasions and there just so happens to have been a lawsuit that uncovered this.
4.21.2008 12:54pm
wfjag:
Zombie Richard Feynman:
You people probably think those swift boat guys were brave truth-tellers, eh?

IF you can prove any of the Swiftboat charges untrue, you should collect the $1Million from T. Boone Pickens so you can quit your day job and start blogging full time. Apparently he and Kerry haven't come to terms yet, so it looks like the offer is still open.

From wikipedia.org article on T. Boone Pickens:

"Pickens has offered $1 Million to anyone who can prove any of the Swiftboat charges untrue. Kerry accepted the challenge and on November 17, 2007 said he would disprove the charges against him.[6] Pickens then added additional criteria to his initial challenge [7], asking for Kerry's service records, videos and tapes made during his service and his military journal. Kerry responded, saying Pickens had backtracked and offered again to meet him in a public forum to dispute his claims [8]. Pickens has yet to respond.


Swift Boat challenge
Main article: Swift Boat challenge
On November 6, 2007, Pickens reportedly offered a million dollars to anyone who could disprove even a single charge made by the Swiftvets and POWs for Truth (SBVT), an anti-Kerry group he had supported in 2004.[22] John Kerry, whose military record and anti-war activism during Vietnam was the target of the group's book and media campaign, sent Pickens a letter on November 16, 2007, accepting the challenge, requesting that Pickens donate the money to the Paralyzed Veterans of America should he succeed in disproving any of the SBVT claims [22].
In response to Kerry's acceptance of the challenge, Pickens issued a letter the same day, narrowing the original challenge to the SBVT ads, and requiring Kerry to provide his Vietnam journal, all of his military records, specifically those covering the years after his active duty service, and copies of all movies and tapes made during his service. Pickens' letter also challenged Kerry to agree to donate $1 million to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation, if Kerry "cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue." [23]
On November 20, 2007, Kerry issued a letter responding to Pickens' letter. He accused Pickens of "parsing and backtracking" on his initial offer and wrote that "I am prepared to prove the lie and marshal all the evidence, the question is whether you are prepared to fulfill your obligation." He concluded that "the only thing remaining now is to set the date for our meeting in an appropriate forum...." [24]"
4.21.2008 1:37pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
In fairness to those who do not like the SBVT, none of the SBVT's claims are easily proven or disproven, since they are largely he-said, she-said types of claims, where you have people on both sides claiming that they did or did not see some thing on a certain day, and other folks saying that they did, or that person A was not at point B at the time.

Most of the 'debunking' of the SBVT's claims involves simply questinging the motives of certain members and using those motives to smear all the others, or treating an unprovable counterclaim as proof the SBVT's are lying (even when the counterclaim is exactly as unproven as the initial claim)

But Kerry *was* forced to retract his Cambodian stories... lies that he had actually told on the floor of the Senate during a debate relating to the Panama invasion.

But of course you won't catch the media mentioning that, or usinging "Christmas in Cambodia" as a euphamism for lying. This is because they are all right-wing hacks.
4.21.2008 4:14pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Spell check is my friend...
4.21.2008 4:16pm
hattio1:
Hoosier says;

(And whenever I hear the name Randi Rhodes, I think Ozzy Osborne's original guitarist.)


You right-wingers can't get anything right. Tony Iommi, of Black Sabbath fame, was Ozzy Osbourne's original guitarist. Randi Roads was his orginal guitarist as a solo act.

Now, for extra credit, what other English rock band did Tony Iommi briefly quit Sabbath for? Hint; it was before Sabbath or the other band were popular.
4.21.2008 4:43pm
Hoosier:
hattio--I didn't say "Sabbath's" original guitarist. You libs certainly do take liberties with texts.

Extra-Credit: I thought I knew. But I looed on Wikipedia and I was wrong.
4.21.2008 5:27pm
Smokey:
Tony Tutins:
After Kerry released his naval records to them, they confirmed the records corroborated his story.
Sorry Mr T, but I call shenanigans. Where are Kerry's military records? Or are they still a secret?

The BoGlo doesn't exactly say that they have the records; it's just sort of vaguely implied. And that article was from ~3 years ago. If Kerry's records were released, they'd be all over the internet.

And it's mighty suspicious that following Kerry's travels to Hanoi, his soul mate Jimmy Carter issued a blanket pardon to everyone who gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

If Kerry's SF-180 is so innocent, why won't Kerry release the info to the public, like Bush did?
4.21.2008 5:41pm
hattio1:
Hoosier;
But Ozzy was in Sabbath, so Tony was his first guitarist. And, BTW, it was Jethro Tull. If I remember correctly, it was like two weeks and then he quit because Ian Anderson was such a controlling jerk.
4.21.2008 6:06pm
LM (mail):
Hoosier,

Extra-Credit: I thought I knew. But I looed on Wikipedia and I was wrong.

If you want another shot at the extra credit, post that answer here.
4.21.2008 7:56pm
LM (mail):
hattio1,

[...] Ian Anderson was such a controlling jerk.

But by now his leg must be killing him, so these things even out.
4.21.2008 7:57pm