George Will: Bush hasn't been telling the truth.
 

Got to take your word for it on the shows. I get all my conservative info from the links Hank posts.

Interesting that Thottam and Smilin' Bob Novak are linking arms in opposition to the Iraq war. Strange bedfellows.

a null set
 

Not Me -- better stop all that work you're doing looking for pre-9/11 Condi statements about Al Qaeda: According to the NYT, "A search of all [her] public statements and writings reveals that [she] apparently mentioned Osama bin Laden only once and never mentioned Al Qaeda at all as a threat to the United States before 9/11."

Maybe the idea that she hadn't heard of them isn't so "retarded."

George Will: Bush hasn't been telling the truth.
 

Why is that when your camp repeats over and over again the "Bush lied" mantra - so much that its become the "Hare Krishna" of the Aughts - I don't think you meant something akin to "Far too many American lives will be lost is this cause"

George Will: Bush hasn't been telling the truth.
 

Will is in our camp? Huh. Go figure. And did you read the article? It isn't saying Bush lied. It is saying that it's going to be expensive and time-consuming to get things even somewhat straightened out over there.

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

The actual quote was:
For all you know, the problems he meant were Vietnam and JFK. You infer he meant segregation.

The media stepped all over this and the GOP didn't defend him because Bush didn't like him as majority leader.

Again, compare Dodd:He would have been a great Senator at ANY moment? Really.
When Byrd was a Kleagle?

After he quit the Klan, when we wrote a letter to the KKK Imperial Wizard in 1946 stating "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union"?

When he decried the desegreation of the Armed Forces stating "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"?

When HE, as Senator in 1964, filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours?

If anything, all of this makes Dodd's comments even more obscene than Lotts, so spare us the fucking bullshit.

George Will: Bush hasn't been telling the truth.
 

I know it's tough to read George Will sometimes, but he's not saying that Bush lied -- he's saying that he has failed, as a leader, to ask the country to make the sacrifices necessary to fight this war properly. As a result, we're in a bad place.

Also, he's not in our camp.

eta: stp

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

Speaking of bullshit, you're defending Lott by pointing to all the other things that he might have been talking about, while attacking Dodd by pointing to bad things that Byrd did in the past.

Thurmond's presidential campaign wasn't about JFK or Vietnam. And Dodd wasn't defending Byrd's career.

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

Go back and read pal. I never liked Lott and never defended him. However, I thought his statement was a stupid off-the-cuff remark that didn't deserve the extent of scrutiny it received.

On the other hand, you are giving Dodd a total free ride.

And why the fuck wasn't Byrd forced to resign after his White Nigger remark a few years back? Why didn't Herbert and O'Dowd call for his head?

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

Read yourself, pal. I don't think I've defended Dodd or Byrd.* The only thing I've posted on this is observation that Dodd and Byrd are serving on the same Senate committee. I'd rather not have to read what Lott, Byrd, Dodd and Thurmond have said.

Maybe we can stipulate that a lot of conservative media have trashed Dodd and Byrd while taking a pass on Lott and Thurmond, and a lot of lefty media jumped on the Lott-trashing bandwagon while studiously ignoring Dodd's comments and Byrd's past.


* I have pointed out more than once that it took a lot of guts for Thurmond to parachute in Normandy on the night before D-Day.

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

On your first point, I will apologize and take your word for it. I sometimes confuse you and Atticus, as you are both intelligent (yet confused) liberals from the Bay Area that litigate and bolt after one drink.

As for the latter, my observation is that the conservative media would not give a fuck about Byrd or Dodd except for the piling on of Strom and Lott. And that Byrd has lasted all these gazillion years with his racist voting record is evidence of this.

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

It's been half a day, and still no answer from the conservative side about how what Dodd and Lott said are the same.

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

well you all explained how the two are different. Lott seemed to reaffirm a 1948 Strom position, rather than compliment him generically. Dodd's mentioning of how much help Byrd would have been "in the Civil War" doesn't suggest trying to bring racism to today.

I said they are both similar in being insensitive statements, almost certainly made without thinking of the intended implication. I could argue that most black (and white) people are more familar with the meaning of the "the Civil War" reference than the basic plank of Strom's candidacy, but I won't.

Atticus point's out that the Civil War reference was benign because West Virginia was on the side of the Union! I question whether Byrd would have voted to stay in the Union if he had been in W. Virginia at that time, particularly if the question was framed solely on slavery.

But, as I understand it, your position is that Lott actually was wistfully hoping a plank could be added to the Republican platform for today, and thus was far worse. If this is true of Lott's position, you are of course correct.

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

I don't respond to idiots.

A Good Test for Media Bias
 

You need a tissue, club? I see a bit of spittle on your cheek.

aV

Iraq
 

The Ukrainians cut and ran from the town of Kut after taking mortar and small arms fire.

The Spaniards watch as the al Sadr militia takes over Najaf.

The Italians hold the bridges over the Euphrates in Nasiriyah, after some sharp engagements.

It is now clear, as it always should have been, that much of our "coalition" is a paper tiger at best. Maybe now, also, we can stop posting all the bullet-point lists touting the new Iraqi Army and National Police Force.

We now can't control Iraq without defeating Sadr's militia and dragging him off in chains. Many Shiites do not support Sadr, but the question is whether the process of doing so will cause the situation to degenerate irretrievably.

He is remarkably ungrateful for his liberation from Saddam's tyranny.

S_A_M