Friday, 02 November 2007
THE LAMBS OF CBS
CBS is in a dogfight to be the most credibility-challenged of the TV networks
(no small accomplishment).
Dan Rather alone puts them in the hunt, but there is so much more.
And, because CBS's credibility problem is their dislike of anything
Republican, especially President Bush, that brings out the LAMBs (Lunatic-left
And Mega-moonbat Brigade) in full force.
Let me give you a case in point. CBS is reporting that "Curve Ball",
the name of an honesty-challenged (to say the least) source of information
related to Iraq's WMDs and quest for uranium, will be "outed" on 60 minutes
Now anyone who reads political news has been aware that he is Rafid
Alwan for years. So this "breaking news" is right up there with a report
that President Bush defeated John Kerry for the presidency (I do, however,
concede that it is news to some of the LAMBs, who don't recognize that any
Republican has ever actually defeated a Democrat).
In any event, the article about this big news was posted on CBS' website with
the following copy, which I have excerpted (you can read the entire piece at www.cbsnews.com). :.
Minutes has identified the man whose
fabricated story of Iraqi biological weapons drove the U.S. argument for
invading Iraq. It has also obtained video of "Curve Ball," as he was known in
intelligence circles, and discovered he was not only a liar, but also a thief
and a poor student instead of the chemical engineering whiz he claimed to be.
60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon's two-year
investigation will be broadcast this Sunday, Nov. 4, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Curve Ball is an Iraqi defector named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who arrived at
a German refugee center in 1999. To bolster his asylum case and increase his
importance, he told officials he was a star chemical engineer who had been in
charge of a facility at Djerf al Nadaf that was making mobile biological
He eventually wound up in the care of German intelligence
officials to whom he continued to spin his tale of biological weapons. His plan
succeeded partially because he had worked briefly at the plant outside Baghdad
and his descriptions of it were mostly accurate. He embellished his account by
saying 12 workers had been killed by biological agents in an accident at the
More than a hundred summaries of his debriefings were sent to the
CIA, which then became a pillar - along with the now-disproved Iraqi quest for
uranium for nuclear weapons - for the U.S. decision to bomb and then invade
Iraq. The CIA-director George Tenet gave Alwans information to Secretary of
State Colin Powell to use at the U.N. in his speech justifying military action
Tenet gave the information to Powell despite a letter - a
copy of which 60 Minutes obtained - addressed to him by the head of
German intelligence stating that Alwan appeared to be believable, but there was
no evidence to verify his story. .
I love that part where CBS slips in their fantasy that the Iraqi quest for
uranium for nuclear weapons is "now disproven". Maybe they should read the
9/11 Commission findings - which, among other things, say that joseph
wilson's report actually BOLSTERED the CIA's belief that Iraq was trying to get
Maybe CBS can also tell us what they think Iraq's high level people were
doing in Niger, a country rich in uranium and little else, when they visited the
country: buying agricultural produce?
But, that aside, this blog is written to show you how LAMBs think, so here
are some of their comments about this CBS story. You should know what the LAMBs
say when they don't think you're looking.
Here is a sampling (believe me, there is more):.
JUST LIKE BUSH,
"WHACK A MOLE, AND HE JUST
KEEPS POPPING UP!".
OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT IN IN CONTEMPT ALLOWING GW BUSH
TO ROAM FREE FROM HIS ''WORSE THAN HITLER'' CRIMES ON THE WHOLE WORLD''S ECONOMY
HILLARY IS A REPUBLICAN TOO!!
Bush was looking for any shmuck they could find
that could feed them phony baloney intel to justify His desire to rape pillage
Both Germany and Italy contacted America and told
them curveball was a fake and his info bogus, long before Bush went public--but
I guess when you want something bad enough (like war, mayhem, torture and a
police state) you gotta go with what you are given and hope it never comes out
if you stack it under "national security
Bu$hco knew that "curve ball" was an unreliable
and unvarifiable source well before they used him in their case for war on Iraq.
This was about stealing control of Iraq''s oil from day one. Every other reason
for going in has turned out to be a total
For the GOP goose-steeping lackeysFor the GOP
goose-steeping lackeys to complain that we are not doing the Kool-Aid dance with
them and following them lemming style over the cliff by calling us Bush-Haters,
Commies, Un-American and worse the chicken has come back to roost for them. It
was a LIE to the American people, all those dead and maimed soldiers coming from
the White House and the buck stops at GW%u2019s desk. Bush has only one thing
that an honorable man would do, resign. However, he is just a crooked politician
taking money out from the hands of the dead solders and from American%u2019s
wallet fro his own greedy good time along with his cronies. The truth will come
out and all he%u2019ll say %u201Cit%u2019s an executive secret%u201D and not be
compelled to tell the truth. Funny thing is if it was a DEM. as POTUS Rush &
his ilk would be breaking down the door of the WH. Unfortunately, if it were a
DEM we would never ever be in the jam in the first place as they are honorable
& wise. Let%u2019s get ion Hillary in before we all blow up this world
believing in the bogie man under the bed .
Let me remind you again that this is just a tiny sampling of the bile found
in these comments. If you want the entire tidal wave go to the
website itself, which I've provided a link for above.
Then go to places like www.crooksandliars.com, www.dailykos.com, etc, read the comments from
their regulars, and find out that this stuff is middle of the road by
And before you answer with "well, there are rightwing site just like it", I
strongly urge you to go to a few and see. You won't find filth like
this at almost any of them. Hatred of this dimension seems to be the
near-exclusive province of the LAMBs.
Nice folks. Really. Let's be sure to put their candidates in
IS THE NEW YORK TIMES BAILING ON HILLARY?
For years, the New York Times has been a reliable supporter of
Hillary Clinton. It supported both of her husband's "co-presidential"
runs, rationalized her health care committee's disastrous performance and then
supported her twice as a senate candidate.
But in the last few months, the Times' support has been anything but
More than most mainstream media, the Times has reported on Senator Clinton's
series of major campaign finance scandals - scandals that, by now, would have
caused virtually every other candidate to either discontinue the presidential
quest or spend 75% of the time trying to defend his/her ethics and
It's not that
has done a lot of reporting about Norman Hsu and then the Milberg Weiss law firm's millions
in dirty money to Hillary and fellow Democrats (among other major scandals - these are certainly not
the only two). It's that they have reported it at all.
By comparison, how
much have you seen about these scandals elsewhere? How much have you seen on the network news
or on the Today or GMA morning shows? Do you recall anything at
But the clearest indication that the Times may be off Ms. Clinton's bandwagon
came this morning, in its letters to the editor section.
The letters to the editor section is certainly not the most popular part of
the paper. Many people never even look at them. But a) it is
the only place where everyday readers can have their say and b) letter
selection is entirely at the Times' discretion. So the paper can (and
in the Times' case, does) use that discretion to create an image of how readers
feel about issues.
Illustratively, President Bush's approval ratings have ranged from the low
90's (right after 9/11) down to the high 20's. But in the New York Times
letters section, the vast majority of readers have attacked hm throughout his
seven years in office. Did the Times receive a far larger sample of
positive letters when his approval ratings were higher? I would think that
to be certain. But because the Times can pick and choose which letters it
publishes you'd never have known it.
Similarly, read the Times' letters about the war in Iraq and try to find
anyone who supports that war. Not just now, but for almost the entire
duration of the war, even when it was enormously popular.
With this in mind, let me show you the three letters published in the New
York Times this morning which talk about Tuesday's Democratic presidential
debate - which, Ms. Clinton complains. was an exercise in "the
boys" ganging up and picking on her as a woman:.
At the Debate: Was It Ganging Up, or
To the Editor:
Re Everybody vs. Hillary, by Gail Collins
(column, Nov. 1):
The reason Hillary Rodham Clinton is in the sights
of other Democratic candidates is that she is the front-runner.
Clinton supporters complain about a bunch of men
ganging up against her. But either she is running as the most viable candidate
to win the election, in which case being a woman had nothing to do with it, or
shes running as a poor, defenseless girl against all those nasty men. The
voting public wont buy the latter position.
Moriches, N.Y., Nov. 1,
To the Editor:
After the Democratic debate, I read about how the
candidates were ganging up on Hillary Rodham Clinton and attacking her. It seems
that we have lost sight of the language and meaning of words.
If a person asks tough questions so that people
can understand what a candidate stands for, that is not ganging up on or
attacking a candidate; it is, in fact, what a debate is for.
And it is not gotcha politics to ask how
somebody who wants to be president would respond to a theoretical situation that
could become an actual problem that would have to be resolved.
Hawthorne, Calif., Nov. 1,
To the Editor:
Whenever Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks in debate
forums, I envision Margaret Thatcher admonishing us not to go wobbly on her.
But then, there is Senator Clinton wobbling on issues of war and peace. Hence we
heard her convoluted rationale for voting for the saber-rattling Senate
resolution on Iran and her less-than-clarion call for reforming Social Security
in order to save it.
But make no mistake; however much Mrs. Clinton may
tack to the right, she will be mercilessly demagogued by the Republican attack
For those who hunger for real change in the White
House after two terms of outsourcing the truth her lawyerly equivocations
dont comport with standing up, ramrod straight and unbowed, for the
progressive-minded principles of democratic (small d) governance.
Barbara Allen Kenney
Atlanta, Nov. 1,
That's all there was, folks. Three letters about the debate and
every one of them criticized Ms. Clinton and derided her. Three out of
Were there letters defending Ms. Clinton? I have no doubt at all that
there were, and plenty of them. But the paper chose to only print the
Just like they do it to President Bush. Just like they do it to
the war in Iraq. What does that tell you?
When mine workers went deeper into the mine, they used to
bring canaries with them. They let the canaries fly ahead of them and
listened for their singing. Because if the canaries stopped singing it meant there wasn't enough air
or there was too much gas where they were headed and the canaries died.. If
the canaries died, so would the miners.
Politically, the parallel is that a candidate can get to
the point where he or she will not be sustained by media.
Maybe today's letters to the editor section indicates the New York Times
has stopped singing to Hillary.
MORE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE ECONOMY
Yes, I know; the dollar continues to weaken, the price of oil continues
to rise and the housing market is still in the tank. There is certainly
bad economic news out there, and mainstream media have no problem telling us
about it every day.
But yesterday I blogged that there was also a 3.9 growth rate in the third
quarter, which is excellent. Did you see/hear about that the way you do
about the bad economic news? I didn't and I suspect you didn't either.
Well here is some more good economic news, courtesy of an excerpt from the
Associated Press. I wonder if it will be in your paper or on the
news show you watch tonight:.
Payrolls Grow by
166,000 in October, Jobless Rate Holds Steady, Labor Department Reports
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Employers boosted
payrolls by a surprisingly strong 166,000 in October, the most in five months,
an encouraging sign that the nation's employment climate is holding up
relatively well against the strains of a housing collapse and credit crunch.
The Labor Department's report, released Friday,
also showed that the unemployment rate held steady at 4.7 percent for the second
month in a row. It's a figure that is considered low by historical standards.
Job gains were logged for professional and
business services, education and health care, leisure and hospitality, and for
the government. Those employment increases more than offset jobs losses in
manufacturing, construction and retail -- casualties of the problems plaguing
the housing market.
The latest snapshot of employment conditions
around the country was better than economists were anticipating. Economists were
forecasting payrolls to grow in October by about half the pace seen -- around
80,000. They did correctly predict the unemployment rate would be
My point is not to paint an overly optimistic picture of our economy. I
think that is obvious from the first paragraph of this blog.
My point is that there is good news along with the bad. Very meaningful
good news. And if you are told little other than the bad news you
will probably think the economy is in much worse shape than it really is.
And you will probably act accordingly.
Or, put another way, if major media bury the positive side of things and
tell us only about the negative side, they are intentionally causing
people to misunderstand and misread the condition of our economy.
Now; are they doing this? You read the newspaper and watch/read the
broadcast media. You tell me.