Disgraced former governer lands job with Fox

[abba]

I would like to see a 2012-ticket that joins forces:

Glenn Beck for president and Bill Clinton for veep (please no puns regarding the latter.)


I think the two of them have the spectrum covered:

Clinton didn't inhale, while Glenn Beck denies nothing.

[Torurot]

Reading from Andrew Cockburn

Hannah Arendt once noted:

   The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgement, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.


and

   . Our entire culture has become stupid, banal, macho, and adolescent - decadent beyond reckoning.  The grotesque reality of the militarized imperial core of 21st Century rentier capitalism.


Don't believe this?  Try this recent Pew Survey. The results may surprise you.  

Friday Night Smackdown - A Sign of the Times
http://www.opednews.com/article....20.html


Public Knowledge: Senate Legislative Process a Mystery to Many
http://pewresearch.org/pubs....-steele

[strocube]

 Great post, Torurot!
I especially liked this bit at the end of the first link:

"Okay, I admit it: I'm an elitist, I truly do not like to associate with dullards. I expect that an American will care enough about the country that provides him or her life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness to be able to get at least 10 out of the very simple Pew questions correct.

It's my birthday, and I'll cry if I want to."

Faux "News" panders to dullards.

[tscrazy]

Just to respond to smuttleydfs :

First of all 9/11 happened within months of Bush's first term.  And he accepted responsibility for it occurring on his watch eventhough our shortcomings insofar as the Intelligence community go far back to the aftermath of Watergate, the Church hearings, Iran Contra and foolish executive orders enacted by Clinton to penalize anyone who transfered intell from intelligence agency to another federal agency.  Much of those policies were quickly reinstituted as soon as Obama became your president. We now have Obama admitting that 4 million Amercians lost their jobs during 2009 and he will end his 4 years never taking responsibility for any of his actions and blaming Bush for everything.  Certainly Bush is culpabale because 3 million Amercians lost their jobs in 2008. And the report just came out that jobless claims have increased 4 times in the last 5 weeks -- this is simply an Obamination !


Second: Truman was playing both sides.  Don't forget we were one of the biggest exporters of arms, war material, and supplies to both sides before we entered the war.  If what you say about Truman was true, he would have imposed a complete embargo to either side in WWI.  He also could have officially held fast to neutrality -- but he did not.  Also, Truman is widely recognized as the biggest rascist who ever sat in the White House.  

Third: before you critize someone for allegedly not knowing their history - you should know the person's background a little better.  I used to be a college history professor before I became a lawyer.  Sure I did not teach Amercian History, but I taught European History.

Also my pointing out Democrats was only to show how biased people like you are.  You will never accept actions taken by a Republican.  Yet the same exact thing done by a Democrat is perfectly fine.

BTW: What ever happened to Obama's promise to pull out 2 brigades from Iraq every month?  He promised our last soldier would be out by September 2009 !  He is also in the process of sending approximately 40,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan.  So do you support that? Or does your bias mute your stance?

Finally, I am glad you pointed out FDR.  He was another leader who refrained from entering the war while he not only let corporations make a fortune in supplying both sides with weapons etc... But he also secretly used the Government to supply the Brits with war material (while feigning neutality).  And it was his short sided policies that ignored all the warnings from our State Department, Embassy in Japan and our allies that aggression was going to be instigated by the Japanese against our holdings in the Pacific.

I can see the errors of both parties and the accomplishments of both- but  then I am not a blind mouthpiece and I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.  I am just plain CRAZY !!! LMAO

[tscrazy]

Another response:

JaiDee thanks for at least accepting my difference of opinion. But i just have to say something about the reasons for war with Iraq. Sure, it was a tremendous mistake but we just cannot focus on the issue surrounding oil, because the fact remains that the U.S. nor any of the U.S. oil companies seized, snatched or otherwise screwed the iraqi's out of oil. So I disagree about that whole premise that it was a war based on grabbing oil. And please don't forget that Colin Powell indicated a plethora of reasons for our military actions.

The fact is that during the Persian Gulf War, Sadam did posses WMD's and he used them against the Kuwaiti's and against our troops. Many of our soldiers returned with numeorus sicknesses after being expoosed to serin (typo?) mustard gas and other chemical weapons. It is also a fact that he was working on the technology to launch these chemicals in his scud missiles on civilian targets in Israel. He also commitied genocide against the Khurdish minorities. He used chemical warfare on those Khurds. He further denied basic human rights to his politcal enemies. He had a network of prisons, where his sons and bath party officicals would just tortue, kill and rape inamtes. So, the question remains whatever happened to those WMD's? British intel had credible sources that indicated it was sent into Syria and possibly to Iraq's enemy - Iran. Sure much of these weaons would have eroded any way and some minor weakened stockpiles were unearthed in the desert but most of it was substantially degraded.

Then came the issue of terrorisism. It is also a fact that while he was no friend to the religious fundamentalist insurgents, he gave them safe refuge in his country and allowed them to maintain training camps.

I recall the days of Carter, when the Democrats were steadfast on the issue of human rights, this was clearly abondoned by the DNC.

Personally, I think we should have recognized an independent Khurdish State instead of that ridicuouls "no-fly" which was rarely enforced. We could have quickly recognized their government and protected them. And we should have used neutron bombs over Baghdad. But only Clinton could have achieved that because the left would have stuck their head in the sand like when Truman bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Had either Bush attempted it -- every marxist, socialist, liberal and progressive would have been screaming war cirminal to the Bush;s and "hero" to Clinton.

[Torurot]

 For an ex history Prof you have a selective view of history.  Where to start.  A while back will do for a start:

War criminals, the US has a fair number.

The Kurds for a start have been a US plaything since the Shahs time.

"1975 by the U.S. Congress€™s Select Committee on Intelligence headed by New York Democrat Otis Pike. The Pike report concluded that for Tehran and Washington the Kurds were never more than €œa card to play.€ A uniquely useful tool for weakening Iraq€™s €œpotential for international adventurism.€ From the beginning said the report, €œThe President, Dr. Kissinger, and the Shah hoped that our clients [Barzani€™s Kurds] would not prevail.€ The Kurds were encouraged to fight solely in order to undermine Iraq. €œEven in the context of covert operations, ours was a cynical enterprise.€

The report€™s damning conclusions continued: Had the U.S. not encouraged the Kurds to go along with the Shah and renew hostilities with Iraq, €œthe Kurds might have reached an accommodation with [Iraq€™s] central government, thus gaining at least a measure of autonomy while avoiding further bloodshed. Instead the Kurds fought on, sustaining thousands of casualties and 200,000 refugees.€

One of the officials who testified before the committee in secret session was Henry Kissinger. When questioned by an appalled congressman about the U.S.€™s decision to abandon the Kurds to their bloody fate, Kissinger chided the committee, €œOne should not confused undercover action with social work.€ "

Up there with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright €“when asked by 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl if it was worth over 500,000 innocent Iraqi children dying €” said, €œIt was worth it.€!!!!!!!! So we are barely into "contemporary" history of Iraqi slaughter by US war criminals.    

[alan1chef]

I think you are painting too broad of a stroke with your war criminal brush. I would not put Henry Kissinger in the same boat as Adolf Hitler.

As for the Kurds I think the optimum word here is "might"..."might have reached an accommodation..." One could as easily argue that the Kurds "might NOT have reached an accommodation" and the statement would be equally as accurate. Don't forget that the Kurds have long been pushing for independence...and still are. At that time, the US had very little direct influence in the region and I would not give any credence to any claim that the US could have been responsible for the Kurds renewal of hostilities with Iraq. It just does not fly with the facts.

As for Palin landing a job with Fox...more power to her. Former politicians get jobs with news stations just like former quarterbacks get jobs with sports stations. It's all entertainment anyway. Ratings concerns replaced real news after the 1960's.

JaiDee...It was ok to attack Bush early in his Presidency but not ok for Obama to get the same treatment? You must be using the liberal definition of fair and balanced.

[Torurot]

Hi Al, On the war criminal continuum, Kissinger, Bush 2, are right up with Pol Pot & others. Sadam has not killed any where near their numbers. Hitler didn't do it all by himself either. Bush 2 as "commander in chief" is directly, and by any measure RESPONSIBLE for the death of well over 1 million Iraqis. Hardly small change. The USA is directly responsible for screwing over the Kurds on multiple occasions. You encouraged their rebellion, and then abandoned them....., more than once. That's fact, as much as it's history. The USA is never responsible for it's actions.

[Lefty]

(tscrazy @ Feb. 05 2010,06:05) Second: Truman was playing both sides.  Don't forget we were one of the biggest exporters of arms, war material, and supplies to both sides before we entered the war.  If what you say about Truman was true, he would have imposed a complete embargo to either side in WWI.  He also could have officially held fast to neutrality -- but he did not.  Also, Truman is widely recognized as the biggest rascist who ever sat in the White House.  

Truman would have imposed an embargo on both sides in WW1? What the heck did Truman have to do with our policies during WW1? He was merely serving in the army during WW1. The only prez to actually see combat in that war btw. If you meant to say WW2, that makes no sense, since he wasn't the prez then either.

Widely considered most racist? First I have ever heard that. Widely considered by most historians as one of the best presidents ever is more like it. Why do you think he was racist? Because he was a member of Sons of Confederate Veterans? If that is all you have, it is pretty weak evidence IMO.

"Truman's attitudes toward blacks were typical of white Missourians of his era, and were expressed in his casual use of terms like "nigger". Years later, another measure of his racial attitudes would come to the forefront: tales of the abuse, violence, and persecution suffered by many African American veterans upon their return from World War II infuriated Truman, and were a major factor in his decision to issue Executive Order 9981, in July 1948, to back civil rights initiatives and desegregate the armed forces."

So the man who desegregated the US Armed Forces is our most racist president?


One thing I do know about him, he was widely loved and respected by the blue collar working class of his day. I can remember my father and all his friends, who knew what it was like to actually work for a living, and earn a pay check by the sweat of their brow and the callouses on their hands, always saying Truman was the best because he was for the working man.

[smuttleydfs]

TScrazy...........please keep posting you are making a far better arguement for your ignorance then anyone else could pointing out your revisionist history

I guess teaching "World History" for the mentally challenged by one of their peers is a good thing somewhere

What a joke

[JaiDee]

(alan1chef @ Feb. 05 2010,15:32) JaiDee...It was ok to attack Bush early in his Presidency but not ok for Obama to get the same treatment? You must be using the liberal definition of fair and balanced.

I said this on page 3;

''Bush 2 was far and away the worst president in my lifetime, maybe ever; so while not missing him one bit, I am not yet impressed with this new guy at all, and he has a lot of work still to do.''

"Not impressed with the new guy at all'' .....does that sound like I LIKE him?

He hasn't impressed me in the year he has been in, not one bit; I am not some water-carrier for the left and made that apparent in that one paragraph. But one year of doing nothing versus 8 years of running America into the ground and taking away our civil liberties with that God-forsaken "patriot act'' are kinda miles apart! If Obama still isn't doing shit in 3 more years I will be the first to yell from the rooftops to get his arse out of there.

Frankly I can't believe Palin still gets considered as a serious contender or even someone appearing on FOX comedy network whom we should listen to; again, the short attention span of the american electorate and how they will follow this horrific bimbo to lead them anywhere just makes me want to hurl

[Tomcat]

(strocube @ Feb. 04 2010,03:14) However, believing the fascist propaganda coming out of Faux "News" is an indication to me that there is something seriously wrong with your ability to think,

" Fascist"

Do you know or understand what the word means. The answer is plainly no. You guys throw around the word Nazi and Fascist so much that it the word has no currency any more.

I doubt if Fox News are calling for a National Socialist type dictactorship now or similar

yes, Right Wing they maybe , but Fascist. If you guys think that this word applies to Fox News then you have all lost your marbles. Better take a course in European History before you make the next post.

[strocube]

Fascism:
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
€¢ (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922€“43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

Even better:

Fascism, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system.

Seems about right; I stand by what I wrote.

[Tomcat]

(strocube @ Feb. 05 2010,22:17) Fascism:
noun

What the fuck has Fox News got in common with Mussolini or Hitler.
Blimey! , ive seen some off the mark statements in my time but this beats them all.

Their website certainly doesnt look that sinister ...
http://www.foxnews.com/slidesh....t=faces

[Guest]

(tscrazy @ Feb. 05 2010,06:05) Just to respond to smuttleydfs :

First of all 9/11 happened within months of Bush's first term.  And he accepted responsibility for it occurring on his watch

I can see the errors of both parties and the accomplishments of both- but  then I am not a blind mouthpiece and I am neither a Democrat or a Republican.  I am just plain CRAZY !!! LMAO

So,Bush accepted responsibility for 9/11 occurring on his watch-Well he could hardly deny it could he?  What an absurd statement!

Strangely enough,I cant remember that press conference when he admitted this!


You also cite British intel-FFS,they have been completely discredited in the aftermath of the Iraq war with their several dodgy dossiers ,and their willingness to be Blair's lap dogs.