AUTHOR: Responder TITLE: Cheney Talking Point DATE: 2/20/2006 08:57:00 AM ----- BODY:
Another talking point regarding Cheney's shooting accident by the left is, "Cheney shot a 78 year old man in the face." Now, it's true that Whittington was hit in the face with some of the shotgun pellets, but the majority of it was in the chest and neck area. The left, by using wants to make it appear as though Cheney took aim and blasted Whittington in the face. The 'objective' media is doing the same exact thing. It would be interesting to see how the left would deal with their kids if they were having say, a snowball fight. Dad warns them not to play too rough. Older brother gets a bead on younger brother and lets loose. He hits younger brother in the shoulder with a snowball. Pieces of that snowball hit younger brother in the face. Younger brother runs inside the house and says, "Older brother hit me in the fact with a snowball!" Now, using the logic offered up by the left, younger brother is 100% right and older brother should be punished for disobeying Dad when he said not to play too rough. Right?
-------- AUTHOR: Responder TITLE: Fact Checking The Fact Check DATE: 2/19/2006 08:28:00 PM ----- BODY:
Faiz, over at Think Progress writes the following about conservative criticism about Al Gore's recent speech in Saudi Arabia:
Earlier this week, in an attempt to shift attention away from Vice President Cheney’s hunting accident, the right wing attacked former Vice President Al Gore for calling attention to the round-up of Arabs and Muslims that occurred in the days after 9/11. Labeling him “seditious,” Michelle Malkin said Gore “slandered” America for stating that Arabs had been “indiscriminately rounded up” after 9/11.

On Tuesday, Karl Rove’s White House deputy, Peter Wehner, emailed Gore’s comments on background to reporters urging them to editorialize on the issue. On NBC’s Meet the Press, Tim Russert gave airtime to Paul Gigot, editor of the Wall Street Journal, so he could say this:

I think the remarks were notable. Because I think when you go to a country like that, particularly in the heart of Wahhabi Islam, and say we have indiscriminately rounded up Arabs in this country after 9/11 — first of all, I don’t think that’s true. I don’t remember us doing that.

While the right has been quick to politicize Gore’s remarks, they haven’t had the time to do a fact-check. Gore was merely stating what has been reported and well-documented over the past few years:

Even some government officials are worried. In a secret meeting of top Justice Department officials hours after the attacks, then-immigration chief James Ziglar rebuked those in the room for proposing a “roundup” of Arabs and Muslims. “I’m not going to be part of this if we’re going to do things that blatantly violate the law,” Ziglar declared, according to people there. [Knight Ridder, 6/15/03]

The Census Bureau’s decision to give to the Department of Homeland Security data that identified populations of Arab-Americans was the modern-day equivalent of its pinpointing Japanese-American communities when internment camps were opened during World War II, members of an advisory board told the agency’s top officials Tuesday. “This for the Arab-American community is 1942,” said Barry Steinhardt, a civil liberties lawyer and member of the panel, the Decennial Census Advisory Committee. “Thousands of Arab-Americans have been rounded up and deported.” [New York Times, 11/10/04]
First of all, let's make something clear: These people were not 'rounded up' simply because they were Arabs. They were rounded up because they were here illegally. Faiz should also think to use more reliable sources than James Ziglar. People were quick to point out Michael Brown was not qualified to be head of FEMA. They should know that Ziglar was perhaps even less qualified to run the INS. You can read more about his useless tenure here. And let us not forget the true criticism of Al Gore's speech. He gave a speech in a foreign country and used the opportunity to bash America. He also gave this speech before an audience made up largely of Saudis, who in case people forget, was the home country of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. He did this while having his speech funded in part by members of Osama bin Laden's family. Gore's actions were irresponsible, and considering they were in part, nonsense, makes it even moreso.
-------- AUTHOR: Responder TITLE: It Deepens DATE: 2/19/2006 08:06:00 PM ----- BODY:
The new loon left theory on why there was a cover-up involving the accidental shooting of Harry Whittington by Vice-President Dick Cheney? Cheney's having an extra-marital affair. Do these people have no shame?
-------- AUTHOR: Responder TITLE: Textbook Definition of Irony DATE: 2/18/2006 09:26:00 AM ----- BODY:
Arianna Huffington's 'Huffington Post' has become a playground for all sorts of people to blog. Entertainers, politicians, pundits, television celebrities, etc. Alec Baldwin writes a blog entry wondering whether or not Harry Whittington will file a civil suit against Dick Cheney for the hunting accident. I can't get into Baldwin's post piece by piece because it would take too long to correct all the inaccuracies and lies. I'll just simply point out that this talk of civil suits is pretty hilarious coming from somebody who was ordered by a jury to pay a photographer $4500 for breaking his nose. There's something else Baldwin says that I find puzzling: I mean, this is the guy that sicced Enron on Gray Davis and the state of California to embarrass Davis, trigger the recall and then watched Arnold Schwarzenegger become governor of California. (To this day, perhaps, still the low point in American political life.) Then Cheney covered it up. Notwithstanding Baldwin's bogus tales of Cheney being at the center of Gray Davis's (the most incompetent Governor the state of California ever had) recall, but I'm wondering why he says the election of Governor Schwarzenegger was a low point in American political life. Schwarzenegger came to this country, barely able to speak English. He succeeded in business, became for a time the biggest movie star in the world, and then went on to become Governor of the largest state in the union. Schwarzenegger's life is shining example of the American dream come true. No Alec, I think you arguing on Crossfire that the National Endowment for The Arts is good for the economy ranks far far lower. Rob offers his view on Baldwin as well.
-------- AUTHOR: Responder TITLE: The Drunk Angle DATE: 2/17/2006 10:03:00 AM ----- BODY:
A conspiracy theory popular amongst the kook left blogs is the hunting party of Dick Cheney and Harry Whittington were all drunk when they went hunting and that was why this hunting accident happened. Whittington has said there was no drinking involved, but for the kooks like Atrios, that's not good enough:
If the White House wants people to stop speculating about whether Cheney was shitfaced when he shot a man in the face they could encourage Cheney's good friend acquaintance Whittington to release the blood alcohol test results. It won't prove whether Cheney was or wasn't drinking but it will certainly be a decent piece of evidence for or against the claim that people were drinking. Whittington's doctors won't comment on the question.
Of course Whttington's doctors won't comment. They're ethically and legally bound not to disclose such information. The problem with Atrios's suggestion is that it would answer nothing to the Bush/Cheney hating kook fringe. Let's say Whittington acquiesed and released the results showing them to be negative. Does anybody really think Atrios or those who think like him would simply drop the matter? Even if we lived in a world they did in the film, 'The Final Cut', and we could see what happened through Cheney's eyes that entire day and it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was nothing more than an accident, Atrios and his ilk would claim the recording was doctored. Let me tell you, Oliver Stone has nothing on these people. Kevin Aylward basically puts the issue to bed. For those of us who live on planet Earth.
-------- AUTHOR: Responder TITLE: Profits Bad DATE: 2/17/2006 08:51:00 AM ----- BODY:
Oliver Willis is amongst several of the more popular liberal blogs. Many of his entries are rife with errors, falsehoods, DNC talking points, and just outrageous nonsense (He claims Republicans are 'evil.'). One of his favorite bogey-men is Fox News, which he claims is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the RNC and the Bush administration. He writes the following regarding Neil Cavuto:
Neil Cavuto gives us a preview of the kind of idiocy we’ll get from Fox when they launch a business channel.

It is easy to make the oil companies villains, when they’re making dough. It hardly seems to rate when they are not.

The oil companies need no lobby. Sometimes I just wonder if they need something else: a fair shake.

Who, who will stand up for the poor oppressed oil companies? They may not break the record for profits by a U.S. company for the third quarter in a row! And poor Rex Tillerson may not have as much money to dispense into RNC pockets. The tragedy of it all.

This is often the kind of tactic Oliver uses. He takes a quote and then puts his own spin on it. All Cavuto is doing is wondering if people like Oliver will care if oil companies start losing money should energy prices plunge. Oliver turns that into some nonsense about "poor oppressed oil companies." Something Cavuto did not allege. It would be interesting to hear from Oliver what he thinks we would be doing if oil companies were losing money? He should remember that many people who work for the oil companies are not billionaires or even millionaires. Many of them are the average working Joe's that Oliver claims the Democratic Party represents. I sincerely doubt Oliver and others who think like him were sending 'Thank You' notes to oil companies 5-6 years ago when most Americans were paying less than a dollar for a gallon of unleaded. Another thing Oliver needs to remember is the relatively low amounts US citizens pay for gasoline in comparison to other countries. In many countries in Europe for example, they're paying more than twice what we pay here. Finally, why is Oliver only attacking oil companies? If record profits are such a bad thing, why doesn't he go after Dell, Microsoft, 401K companies, and other industries that are seeing huge gains in their profits? Because those companies don't fit the left's model of bad companies out to score profits off the backs of working Americans. That and they can't tie those industries to President Bush.