–adjective
1. depraved, villainous, or base.
2. Archaic. holding a false or unorthodox religious belief; heretical.
–noun
3. a vicious or depraved person; villain.
4. Archaic. a heretic or infidel.
The White House “attack” on Fox is being derided as bad politics, as ineffective and as a distraction from more important issues — all of which may be true. But doesn’t it kind of matter that, when it comes to the substance of what Anita Dunn, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, and now even Obama himself have said, they’re exactly right?
Anybody remember when Bush freaked out about this interview?
Disclaimer: If you are subject to nightmares or offended by the obscenity of criminal stupidity or blatant liars, DO NOT WATCH THIS (especially the end part where he gets huffy).
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
NBC’s handling of the interview was not atypical for a tightly-edited broadcast and did not violate any journalistic norms. The White House may believe that news outlets are obliged to reproduce all of Bush’s non-answers in their rambling entirety, but that’s not the way the news business works….
“The White House’s outsized reaction instead appears to be about two other things entirely.
It doesn’t take a trained psychologist to observe that Bush got angrier and angrier as the Engel interview went on….
Bush typically sits down with interviewers from Fox News — or, more recently, Politico — where he can count on more than his share of ingratiating softballs. But Engel, a fluent Arabic speaker who has logged more time in Iraq than any other television correspondent, assertively confronted Bush with the ramifications of his actions in the Middle East.
For instance, Engel noted: “A lot of Iran’s empowerment is a result of the war in Iraq.” He questioned Bush about his lack of an exit strategy in Iraq: “So it doesn’t sound like there’s an end anytime soon.” He clearly upset Bush by saying that “on the ground,” the situation in Iraq “looks very bleak.” (Bush replied: “Well, that’s interesting you said that — that’s a little different from the surveys I’ve seen and a little different from the attitude of the actual Iraqis I’ve talked to, but you’re entitled to your opinion.”)
He also challenged Bush on his legacy: “[I]f you look back over the last several years, the Middle East that you’ll be handing over to the next President is deeply problematic: You have Hamas in power; Hezbollah empowered, taking to the streets, more — stronger than the government; Iran empowered, Iraq still at war. What region are you handing over?”
And Bush seemed positively furious by the end of the interview, when Engel had this to say: “The war on terrorism has been the centerpiece of your presidency. Many people say that it has not made the world safer, that it has created more radicals. That there are more people in this part of the world who want to attack the United States.”
Love him or hate him, Bush was an arrogant, uninformed miscreant. He embarrassed us and changed history for the worse, much worse.
In case you couldn’t stomach listening to the end, here for your convenience is the last part of the interview featuring the Bush Beehive Theory.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
#1 by Richard Warnick on October 25, 2009 - 9:32 am
There are not a lot of journalists I admire, but Richard Engel is the real deal. He’s extremely knowledgeable, and while others report from hotel rooftops he is often found on the front lines.
#2 by Gutting the Annelids on October 25, 2009 - 9:32 am
This has to be Bush’s fault, I just need you to tell us how OhBamabootlicker!! Please guide us.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq
Just a reminder to progressives, we really are not still in Iraq, whatever Chairman O says is what we are really doing, not the reality on the ground.
OhbamaMess-iah why have you forsaken us??
We really aren’t in Afghanistan, and no we really are not flying unmanned drones into sovereign nations (Pakistan) in violation of international law.
OhbamaMess-iah: “Given enough time leftwingnut Cliff, you will deny me thrice before this administration is out”!!
#3 by Ken on October 25, 2009 - 12:37 pm
Bush may have criticized some news outlets and particular stories but what Obama has done is not criticizing Fox News or refute what they are reporting but instead he is trying to get them blacklisted to intimidate them into silence.
Bush endorsed eight years of an extremely hostile press not just one News outlet and he took it like a man not like the ultra thin skinned Obama that is showing he cannot abide any criticism and instead of refuting what his critics are saying he has resorted to his base Chicago thug politics nature to attack the messenger instead of the message.
Obama is using the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” approach which is don’t engage your critics, eliminate them.
Cliff, in that link I showed you it had hundreds of examples of news outlets criticizing Obama’s actions from the New York Times, the major networks, Los Angeles Times, liberal and conservative outlets.
Maybe some News outlets are secretly cheering the administration on with their attack on Fox News but with their clocks being cleaned on a daily basis with ratings can you blame them?
#4 by Long ago, and far away. on October 25, 2009 - 1:36 pm
I had this conversation with Cliff years ago post 911 Ken, when Bush was trampling the Constitution in the Iraq war run up which by now no one can claim to be “morally superior” in. No one in political office except maybe Bernie and Ron Paul, Kucinich.
I recall saying the facts are less relevant than the lies that need to be repeated endlessly without taking a breath. This is how you destroy political opposition, not with logic, but incessant LYING!! The more well adjusted fellow travelers you can get to believe the lies the better of course. If they shave, cut their hair, look “normal” are articulate, even better.
Logic is a waste of time in politics which frankly rule just about everything. Whatever it takes to eliminate their power in the dialogue. If anyone knows this it is Rahm, he is the bona fide liar in the administration. With any luck we can catch him at his favorite hobby, screwing small children. This is how it goes.
It appears Cliff took the teaching.
I didn’t say it was moral, or necessarily effective, but is the only chance a broad swath of liars have to deceive and then control and then subjugate a healthy population quite sure of itself.
It didn’t tell him everything though, and the better part of it is that two can play that game, and the party willing to really physically destroy you with arms wins that conflict should push come to shove. Why an armed populace is so essential to Liberty.
Cliff hates guns because he wishes to destroy opposition to his agenda without that 2ndary risk. A true believer with no military component. No guns then whoever wins the Lying War and convinces morons of his lies will get to rule.
Guns clear the deck for the second wave of who is going to be “right” and “rule” . Can’t win if you don’t play. Armed people that know history and this drill will use their weapons before they ever lose them unless lulled to sleep by a Siren Song of unrelenting bullshit.
Ex: One of the problems we have with Arabs is that like Homer their ears are stuffed with cotton, and they just can’t hear the lying music. They aren’t the only ones. Only one leader need be tied to the Mast to guide them. For the Arabs that is Allah, and he is impervious to any western proselytizing. Such phenomena as this turns the West to Stone.
#5 by brewski on October 25, 2009 - 6:13 pm
hack
Pronunciation [hak]
–noun
1. a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts: As a painter, he was little more than a hack.
2. a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.
3. a writer who works on the staff of a publisher at a dull or routine task; someone who works as a literary drudge: He was one among the many hacks on Grub Street.
#6 by Richard Warnick on October 25, 2009 - 7:31 pm
Ken–
President Bush faced “eight years of an extremely hostile press”? You cannot possibly back up that statement.
Read Eric Boehlert’s book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush and get back to me.
This is a discussion worth having, but only if you stick to the facts!
#7 by Larry Bergan on October 25, 2009 - 11:27 pm
Without the internet, the coverage of Bush Jr. would have been a love fest of unimaginable scope on over-the-air broadcasting. Stories of unimpeachable integrity were researched and broken on left-wing websites and could not be totally ignored. If they could have been they would have.
Corporate media is a corpse being propped up by lies and will fall shortly; when this happens, we’ll be able to hear and see the truth in high-def.
#8 by A N O'Ther on October 26, 2009 - 10:08 am
Homer? Cotton? Mast? If you feel the need to allude to classical literature to demonstrate your intelligence, it would help if you were even vaguely accurate. The reference I think you are trying for is to Book 12 of the Odyssey. It is Odysseus who is tied to the mast, his crew’s ears are plugged with wax, and Homer was the author. I would suggest you read it – it may help with your almost unbearable prose style.
#9 by Long ago, and far away. on October 26, 2009 - 2:19 pm
The reference is to the author of the Odyssey, like Homer, see as it is a story and he wrote it. For the record the crew does have wax stuffed in their ears, and Odysseus is the person tied to the mast without the wax in his ears so he can navigate. Sorry to be unclear. I think you get the point. What else you got? Been a very long time since I read it.
It isn’t prose, it is written as a person might speak it in public. This is blog, and as such has no meaning to just about everyone. Though I cannot speak for you.