Is Cheney Alright?

June 25, 2005 10:57 AM

Cheney checks into Vail hospital, White House may be lying about what happened...
While the White House insists that Vice President Cheney was rushed to the hospital in Vail, Colorado to see an orthopedist others suggest he "was whisked to the adjacent cardiac unit, suffering from what was described...as 'an angina attack.'"

For more on the long history of the the administration's obfuscation regarding Cheney's heart condition, read this.
posted by ericb (133 comments total)

Cheney is more machine than man, at this point. He'll outlive us all.
posted by psmealey at 11:06 AM on June 25, 2005

Give the guy a little privacy, for cryin' out loud. He went to
Colorado for a vascectomy and just wants to keep his nuts out of the news.
posted by leftcoastbob at 11:08 AM on June 25, 2005

Heeeeere's Condi
posted by Bighappyfunhouse at 11:08 AM on June 25, 2005

I thought Cheney's nuts were running the country...
I think I scored a TRIPLE-entendre here...
posted by wendell at 11:15 AM on June 25, 2005

Nothing wrong with his heart.....he doesn't have one.
posted by ericb at 11:16 AM on June 25, 2005

When he talked about the "last throes" of the Iraqi insurgency the other day, maybe he was just talking about the "last throes" that he would ever see...
posted by wendell at 11:24 AM on June 25, 2005

one hospital staffer.. “He’s no longer here”

Is this a joke?
posted by stbalbach at 11:28 AM on June 25, 2005

for ONCE i'm really hoping that they ARE lying to us.

what IS the world coming to?
posted by coyote's bark at 11:28 AM on June 25, 2005

what is this website coming to?
posted by reflection at 11:31 AM on June 25, 2005

I don't know but as far as serious health is concerned this is looking more and more like the old Soviet leaders continual denial of health issues. Cheney notwithstanding there have been some semi-creditable stories that Bush himself is not exactly in the peak of health.

Who knows?
posted by edgeways at 11:45 AM on June 25, 2005

As soon as Cheney dies, I'll consider calling for Bush's impeachment.
posted by faceonmars at 11:46 AM on June 25, 2005

Another heart problem? Who the hell thought Cheney would make a good vice president in the first place?
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:57 AM on June 25, 2005

Ha! I always knew he was a she.

Oh wait, angina? Sorry.
posted by RockCorpse at 12:01 PM on June 25, 2005

Cheney has to leave sometime bet now and 07 anyway, so that whoever is going to be heir apparent can be installed. That Heeeeere's Condi is not far off, but i'd bet on George Allen or Santorum or Romney. Definitely a white man.
posted by amberglow at 12:10 PM on June 25, 2005

I hope he's OK.
posted by davidmsc at 12:10 PM on June 25, 2005

The only thing what could make this thread cheaper would be to mention this anatomical monstrosity. I sure hope we don't stoop to that level.
posted by horsewithnoname at 12:10 PM on June 25, 2005

horsewithnoname - that's just his alien feeding tube.
posted by socratic at 12:12 PM on June 25, 2005

I'm a little suprised at the "die nazi die" comments on americablog that ericb linked too. When Clinton had his heart issues, even Freerepublic was wishing him well (which really suprized me). I'm guessing that comments were deleted there, but who knows.
posted by delmoi at 12:13 PM on June 25, 2005

So, here are some links reporting a rumor. This isn't even quality enough to merit a "news filter" post.
*sighs*
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:14 PM on June 25, 2005

Thank you, davidmsc, for the one bit of humanity on this thread. I am actually ashamed that your thought never occurred to me.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:15 PM on June 25, 2005

So, who takes the VP spot if Cheney dies?
posted by odinsdream at 12:20 PM on June 25, 2005

ps. my alien feeding tube comment was merely a snark. I don't like Cheney, and I don't like Bush, but I've already had a little quiet thought wishing him a speedy recovery *if* there's something wrong with him. He's someone I disagree with and dislike intensely, but I certainly don't wish him ill. Plus he's the Vice President of the United States, and I respect the office.

Ok, now I feel cleaner.
posted by socratic at 12:23 PM on June 25, 2005

elwoodwiles said:
So, here are some links reporting a rumor. This isn't even quality enough to merit a "news filter" post.
*sighs*


Wow, I thought we were going to actually make it through a whole thread without someone complaining about what a poor FPP [insert thread topic] was. Seems people spend more time anymore discussing the merits of said thread anymore, rather than the topic itself. If you don't want to read it, well..... don't.


On preview, I wish Mr. Cheney only the worst.
posted by rabble at 12:24 PM on June 25, 2005

leftcoastbob & socratic, you can let your consciences rest assured by the fact that those sentiments probably never occur to Cheney either.
posted by RockCorpse at 12:26 PM on June 25, 2005

RockCorpse - No doubt, no doubt, but I aim to be better than they are, not the same vile bastards, y'know?
posted by socratic at 12:29 PM on June 25, 2005

May he live long enough to face the tribunal's judgment in good health.
posted by mokujin at 12:29 PM on June 25, 2005

socratic - i hears ya and i truly respect that. i'm just sayin' there are people who *really* need your concern.

On another note, nobody here has made any heartless cracks.
posted by RockCorpse at 12:39 PM on June 25, 2005

If Cheney did not specifically sign a release form allowing the White House, or anyone for that matter, to discuss his private medical history, it is against the law for anyone to do so.

Technically the White House (and the hospital) has no legal option beyond No Comment.
posted by Mick at 12:40 PM on June 25, 2005

RockCorpse, please don't put me in the same "good conscience" category as socratic. He has at least had the decency to wish him a speedy recovery. I, on the other hand, am still just ashamed that a) I didn't think of it like davidmsc and b) don't really wish him a speedy recovery.

I'm not actually as good person as they, but the hopeful sign is that at least I am conflicted about it.
posted by leftcoastbob at 12:44 PM on June 25, 2005

Read here, Mick.

That's not a No Comment. I have no idea whether or not Huffington is full of it, nor do I really care. I don't like the secrecy about sick leaders, either, but so what.

But the angle you're taking is a non-angle.
posted by teece at 12:52 PM on June 25, 2005

I don't know but as far as serious health is concerned this is looking more and more like the old Soviet leaders continual denial of health issues. Cheney notwithstanding there have been some semi-creditable stories that Bush himself is not exactly in the peak of health.

American Presidents, especially those of the last century, have a tradition of lying about/concealing their health from the electorate. FDR and JFK are just the first two that come to mind; I'm willing to bet there are more. This isn't just a Soviet/"Dear Leader" thing.
posted by sbutler at 12:56 PM on June 25, 2005

In the spirit of the feeding tube being this year's Macarena, what do you think the odds are that Cheney winds up on such a feeding system? I'm kind of looking forward to the national agenda being completely sidetracked over the debate of whether or not to obey what might be his wishes or to preserve the administration's culture of life.
Do you think the secret service would try to stop doctors from removing the tube in such a situation?

I get the feeling that his contract with the devil expired a few years ago and this continuing heart condition is actually The Dark Lord sending him a message. hissing whisper: "Time to come home, Dick. We've warmed up a nice spot for you..."
posted by Jon-o at 1:05 PM on June 25, 2005

We all gotta go sometime.

Let's hope that Cheney doesn't survive to the point when doctors can just scrap his funky body and heart, to pop his brain into a robot body.

Then, Cheney would be able to manifest himself as anything at all - like a Komodo Dragon, an Emperor Penguin, or a pre-pregnancy Brittney Spears look-alike that pranced around swinging her ass while talking like an even more vicious version of Anne Coulter.

Man, Cheney could be anything then......a huge robotic spider, a man-eating shark, anything. Or just a brain in a vat, scheming.

Indeed : from his brain-vat Cheney could be everywhere. He could be his own panopticon, patched into all of the world's video cameras and augmented by prototypes of tiny robot-roaches, with built in surveillance cameras, designed to crawl into our houses and look for possibly subversive activities. Cheney's brain could be patched into hundreds of gigabytes of the latest DDR RAM and preloaded with the life data, gleaned by the Total Information Awareness project boys, of every American or everyone on Earth.

They could wire the Cheney-brain up to HAARP to somehow give it creepy psychic powers, like a supercharged poltergeist. Cheney might want tentacles, too, so he could squeeze his foes to death anaconda style.

I won't even get into sex.... but Cheney would want it all.
posted by troutfishing at 1:11 PM on June 25, 2005

don't give them any ideas, trout!
posted by amberglow at 1:15 PM on June 25, 2005

Also, it's not cholesterol that clogs his heart. It's a thick, dark, ichor that, when shed like blood, makes the sound of tortured souls screaming in eternal agony.
posted by Jon-o at 1:17 PM on June 25, 2005

Coming at you like an eagle blazin' through the skies, Dick Cheney's alive!
posted by rafter at 1:17 PM on June 25, 2005

When the doctors perform surgery, they have to be very careful to contain his evil fluid. Otherwise, the tormented souls will be unleashed and kill everyone in the room, a-la Raiders of the Lost Ark.
posted by Jon-o at 1:19 PM on June 25, 2005

I can only offer concern for his well-being equivalent to the concern he offers for the lives of others.

Looking at the size of the death toll he is directly responsible for, it doesn't look like I can offer him much.

It's all about balance, man.
posted by sourwookie at 1:37 PM on June 25, 2005

I genuinely wish him no ill will. He may be a fuckhead but I'd rather he was a live fuckhead in jail than a dead fuckhead being mourned over by thousands. Until he's in prison issue clothing people are going to think he was a kindly old man, not an evil weasel-strangling shit.

Get well soon Cheney. Bubba, your prospective cellmate wants you to be good and healthy for long nightly chats about your hatred of botty sex.
posted by longbaugh at 1:39 PM on June 25, 2005

Gotta agree with a lot of the posts here.

I'd rather he lived long enough to die in prison, not at a ski resort.
posted by rougy at 2:02 PM on June 25, 2005

RockCorpse : you are thinking of ann coulter

http://www.ramdac.org/images/anncoulter1.jpg
posted by MrLint at 2:12 PM on June 25, 2005

Holy Hell are there some real impressive people in here. Nice show of compassion. Clearly, if someone disagrees with you, they deserve to die or worse. At least, that's what I come away with here. What kind of moral stance are you taking?

Delmoi starts it off quite nicely, not being an A-Hole, and pointing out that the proper response to ones political opponent being ill is sympathy, rather than ill will.

And then it disintigrates.

Rabble: On preview, I wish Mr. Cheney only the worst.

LeftCoastBob: I, on the other hand, am still just ashamed that... b) don't really wish him a speedy recovery.

Jon-O: In the spirit of the feeding tube being this year's Macarena, what do you think the odds are that Cheney winds up on such a feeding system?

Rougy: I'd rather he lived long enough to die in prison, not at a ski resort.

Taken together, does anyone else see it as ghoulish? Rooting for someone to die? Delmoi's point is exactly right, and I think it's one of a few reasons the Democrats keep losing elections. You guys come off as nasty, with no perspective, and ironically, no heart.

I was always led to believe that if you have a political opponent, the thing you do is you object to what they're doing, and you lobby others to do the same. You don't hope they die. Clearly, my bad.
posted by swerdloff at 2:22 PM on June 25, 2005

I 2nd longbaugh, rougy, et al. The man should die in prison, a la Al Capone, a thug in a very similar vein.
posted by papakwanz at 2:27 PM on June 25, 2005

That probably should of been "a thug of a very similar kind" but whatever.
posted by papakwanz at 2:32 PM on June 25, 2005

Clearly, if someone disagrees with you, they deserve to die or worse.

This is no mere game. Cheney does more than disagree with people, he is directly responsible for policies that are doing irreparable harm to the condition of the Republic and leading actions that have led to misery and death for thousands. It's not my place to say that he deserves utter misery visited upon him in his declining years, though I may wish for it my weaker moments, but to claim that Cheney merely disagrees with some people is understatement to the point of absurdity.
posted by psmealey at 2:45 PM on June 25, 2005

I think it's one of a few reasons the Democrats keep losing elections.

No, it really isn't. If the wingnuts have proven anything over the last few years, it's that you don't win anything by being nice.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:51 PM on June 25, 2005

I disagree with my brother, girl friend, landlord and a variety of others on a regular basis, and wish them no ill will.
To say that I disagree with those responsible for needless death and misery around the globe in the interest of self enrichment is inadequate to say the least. To those individuals I wish a hell on earth and eternal torment in whatever after life is waiting for them.
I'll save my compassion for Cheney's victims, and I don't think it's necessary to post the obligatory link to photos of mangled bodies of Iraqi children to make the point.
posted by 2sheets at 2:57 PM on June 25, 2005

We can only hope that Halliburton gets the no-bid contract for his new robot body. With the prices they will charge the american taxpayer, he won't be able to afford laser beam eyes AND chainsaw hands.
posted by fatbobsmith at 3:40 PM on June 25, 2005

On another note, nobody here has made any heartless cracks.

"The doctor didn't have time to finish my transplant operation," said Tom half-heartedly.
posted by Creosote at 3:50 PM on June 25, 2005

Ill will? You're damn right. Voting against him twice didn't work so I'll take what I can get, thank you.

sarcasm/

Oh, poor Dick Cheney is in the hospital with heart trouble. He's such a saint and does such great things for our country. The world will surely suffer without him.

/sarcasm

Give me a break. The guy's career is one of greed and violence that leaves a wake of destruction across the globe. I can't help but think he's got some suffering coming to him.

In prison, out of prison, in office, out of office, dead, alive, whatever. As long as he's out of the picture.

To say that it's merely disagreement sells the position really short. I don't wish him ill will because I disagree with his budget plans. I wish him ill will because he's a scheming, lying, murderer.
posted by Jon-o at 3:56 PM on June 25, 2005

I wouldn't piss on him if his heart were on fire.
posted by Jon-o at 3:57 PM on June 25, 2005

Don't like the man, think he may well have commited crimes and encouraged atrocities, and would speak against most of his policies and have voted against him when I've had the chance.

I don't wish him dead or ill health, though. I wish him to realize that many of the things he's supported are wrong and for him to try and make amends. Since that isn't likely to happen, I'd rather see him perfectly healthy as the neocons are swept out of office in the next few elections.

Politically, his death would create sympathy for Bush and crew. He would be buried as a hero who worked tirelessly for the cause. I would rather he live a comfortable, healthy and happy life into a splendid old age and then die peacefully and mostly forgotten. Or in jail should it be proven he has supported crimes and attrocities. Either suits me.

That vitriol being spewed, I still wish him good health.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:13 PM on June 25, 2005

Ha! I always knew he was a she

He ought to be in Telluride, not Vail.
posted by 6550 at 4:24 PM on June 25, 2005

For those of you still wondering, the 25th Amendment has this to say:

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

So now you know.
posted by ntk at 4:29 PM on June 25, 2005

I suppose the amount of vitriol depends on how evil you think the guy is.

If you figure the guy ranks up there with Idi Amin and Stalin, then I guess you're gonna rejoice just a little about his ill health, suffering, and death.

And, y'know, if he is that evil, then it's probably not such an unwarranted bit of hatred. There might well be reason to wish someone had had the foresight to do away with the bastard back when he as a kid pulling the wings off flies.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:31 PM on June 25, 2005

Let him croak in peace, like thousands of victims of his oil war obsession, and then let's watch Dubya try to swim alone with Uncle Karl...
posted by zaelic at 4:33 PM on June 25, 2005

What psmealey said.
posted by rabble at 4:38 PM on June 25, 2005

Taken together, does anyone else see it as ghoulish? Rooting for someone to die? Delmoi's point is exactly right, and I think it's one of a few reasons the Democrats keep losing elections. You guys come off as nasty, with no perspective, and ironically, no heart.

This is one of the most politically tone deaf thing I've heard someone say in a while.

I'm genuinely curious, swerdloff, are you just trolling, or are you this completely oblivious to the state of American politics?

There's a guy named Klein, been on all the major talk shows lately, praised in the National Review, etc. His makes the claim in his new book that Chelsea Clinton is the result of Bill Clinton raping Hillary Clinton. Behavior like this is not at all uncommon for conservatives, indeed, these kind of accusations were a cottage industry among the mainstream right during the '90s.

Give me a fucking break with the "liberals are mean" bullshit.
posted by teece at 4:52 PM on June 25, 2005

OMG!!!11!! Dick Cheney is DEAD?!! Oh, he's not? Oh well.
Maybe ya'll oughtta wait with this bile till he is?
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 5:02 PM on June 25, 2005

Wait? I hope he can hear this.
posted by Jon-o at 5:12 PM on June 25, 2005

Teece - It's not that Liberals are mean. It's that Liberals aren't being taken seriously anymore and keep losing elections because they're so prone to hyperbole.

As a brief recap, there is no comparison of a system that caused the death of 25 million to what's happening in Guantamo. There just isn't. There IS comparison between the treatment ofthe Koran at Guantamo with the Bible in Saudi Arabia, but nobody wants to make that.

There is no comparing George Bush to Hitler until he accedes to a third term by use of force.

The hyperbole makes us look ridiculous. There are no death camps, there are no internment camps of citizens, and to suggest there are and to compare what we're doing to regimes where that is the case is either historically naive or disingenuous.

The trouble is - I'm a liberal and a lifelong Democrat, and it seems like the inmates are now running the asylum on this side. Clearly, they were over on the Republican side, but somehow they got elected anyway. But really, we're supposed to have an alternative, not creepy name calling. That's why we keep losing. Nobody listens when I say that, of course, instead, and you should check the history of my comments, it generally comes down to ad hominem attacks on me.

That's how Rove played Hillary and the others - all they had to do was say "sure, Moveon.org did say some stupid things, but here's what we said and why we said it, and our concrete proposals for fixing the mess that you got us in." Instead, Hillary and Schumer came out and said that 9/11 shouldn't be politicized. Moreover, Hillary and Schumer DIDN'T come out and condemn Michael Moore for politicizing 9/11.

Clearly, neither side is perfect. But the Left right now is just opening itself up to bad things by acting as we see above, and pandering to its farthest left base - those who wish for the death of other Americans because they don't agree with them.

Democrats are getting played. It's not just by the ferocity of the right, it's by the stupid knee jerk reactions to the right.

Delmoi's point about what Freepers did on hearing Clinton was ill is exactly right - hope for a speedy recovery, and then back into the trenches for each issue - they're your political opponents, but not your enemies. Your enemies fly planes into buildings. Your enemies want you dead. This is not that. This is people who have policies we disagree with.

Obviously, I'm going to be reamed with "yeah, but Cheney sends people off to die and he's immoral and evil and..." and I remind you that Bill Clinton engaged in more theaters than the Bush administration, but nobody complained about that. Recall Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Just pointing that out.
posted by swerdloff at 5:19 PM on June 25, 2005

Give me a fucking break with the "liberals are mean" bullshit.

Another tu coque from teece.
posted by Kwantsar at 5:27 PM on June 25, 2005

Klein doesn't speak for the Republican party. Near as I can tell he doesn't speak for anyone but himself.

And the Dems aren't losing because they're not nasty enough.
posted by dsquid at 5:28 PM on June 25, 2005

Bill Clinton engaged in more theaters than the Bush administration, but nobody complained about that. Recall Yugoslavia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

You know why? Because not only did we have real international support for those actions, we didn't get lied to about them.
Also, while I don't have figures handy, I suspect that the number of troops who died under Clinton doesn't even begin to approach the number of dead since "Mission Accomplished."
posted by Jon-o at 5:35 PM on June 25, 2005

Will Vice President Dick Cheney leave office – for any reason whatsoever – prior to the 2008 elections, and if so, when?
posted by pruner at 5:38 PM on June 25, 2005

The trouble is - I'm a liberal and a lifelong Democrat

It's really hard to tell by your comments in the posts. I'd say that doesn't appear to be true.

And what jon-o said too.
posted by nofundy at 5:53 PM on June 25, 2005

Kwantsar, I know it's a lot to ask, but learn to read. I justified neither side. But to pretend that Democrats are losing because they are uncivil or prone to hyperbole is just plain absurd.

Because the party that is beating them wrote the book on those things, and it ain't hurting them.

Swerdlof: if you really are a Liberal Democrat, I'd say you need to seriously reexamine why Democrats are losing, as I'd say you're way off. Indeed, the reasons Democrats lose are many and complicated, but the reason you list here isn't one of them. Indeed, it's only on places like MetaFilter that you can even hear any of the charges leveled that you so detest: they aren't coming from Democratic leaders, so your point seems very vacant to me. What people on MeFi say and what the Democratic party says are very different. It's the same for Republicans. What you'll notice is that the crap you see flung on Little Green Footballs does not hurt the Republicans. Neither does the crap flung on Daily Kos. Losing elections has little to nothing to do with what you talk about. That's not an endorsement of the behavior, regardless of what Kwanstar wants to believe.

dsquid: I wasn't making any claim that Klein spoke for the Republican party, just as the callous folks here on MeFi wishing Cheney ill don't speak for the Democratic party. Merely trying to point out that callous, petty behavior is much more prominent on the Right, and it hasn't hurt them any, so the idea that such behavior is costing Democrats elections is just absurd.
posted by teece at 5:58 PM on June 25, 2005

Democrats are losing because they don't have discipline and they don't have ideas. Bush hate (to say the least of Cheney hate) is a great way to indulge both vices at once!
posted by MattD at 5:59 PM on June 25, 2005

Well, as I've often so benevolently maintained, I'd give Cheney or Bush or any of the current gang of Chickenhawks a unit of my own pinko blood if they needed it.....right before I grabbed them forcefully by the napes of their slimy ChickenNecks and forced them to confront the death and terror they have created worldwide.

And oh, swerdloff, please, you and the rest of MetaFilter's 101st FenceStraddlers - give it a fucking, everlastin' rest. You're all exactly as "liberal" as Bush's atrophied right testicle, and it's your ambivalence and kowtowing to the Right's fearmongering that loses elections. This is the same pattern of the Civil Rights 60s, when "moderates" told blacks to "please tone it down" and just "be patient", told Vietnam war protestors "there's a war on" and "this is your enemy" and to "support the troops" courageously burning villages in Vietnam, etc....thereby saddling us with the likes of Johnson and Nixon. This is the same jump on the "these are our enemies" bandwagon ChickenShit that got us into the current American Quagmire. And it sure as hell ain't the "moderates" who've moved the tremendous inertia of fearful American public opinion to outright nonsupport of Quagmire II - it's the screaming, marching, stomping, indignant, antiwar, Michael Moore, fold_and_mutilate, and MoveOn.org commies who are doing the heavy lifting.

~wink~

(Oh, and Cheney, my man: really dude, call if you need blood. There are probably at least a few hundred units floating around Iraq whose former, um, containers won't need them anymore, thanks to you and yours.)
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:02 PM on June 25, 2005

(Witness the name calling by F&M and Nofundy)

Teece - I refer you to the talking points memo handed to the GOP by the Democrats in the wake of September 11th. That Democrats are frothing at the mouth about the wrong things looks pretty bad at that link.

Comparing the US treatment of prisoners to Gulags? Amnesty Interational.

Comparing the US treatment of prisoners to Nazis? Durbin.

Giving Michael Moore a seat at the DNC convention right by Jimmy Carter? Someone with bad event planning skills.

All of the above brought to you by the Democratic political machine and their supporters. Except the part where the GOP compiles what Dems said and throws it in their face. That part is from the Dems.

So - I would argue that yes, the bad actions that I'm talking about, the hyperbole, the blowing things so far out of proportion that they're not taken seriously, can be laid at the feet of the Democratic political machine.

And a note to F&M - I'm not liberal? I support abortion. I support taxation at rates that support welfare for people and not corporations. I support social security. I support the Constitution and the Filibuster. And I also support the Iraq war. We broke it, we bought it. And I admit that I'm quite happy that the "foreign fighters" that are pouring into Iraq are walking right into our Marines, rather than into the Pizza joint I plan to go to for dinner in a few hours. But then - because I don't vociferously oppose the Iraq war, and I don't think that George Bush should be (insert nasty thing you want done to him here), I've clearly not got my Liberal bona fides.

One other thing that I've been seeing Democrats do lately - not welcome those who disagree on some issues but agree on others. That's a Republican hallmark, which at least they pay lip service to - witness the "big tent."

Clearly, I'm not in the "club" because I disagree with the party line on certain issues. I thought part of being Liberal was believing that we all can have differing opinions but it's good to share some? Clearly, not.
posted by swerdloff at 6:31 PM on June 25, 2005

You know, this would be an excellent time to point out that I think it's ridiculous to call yourself a liberal, or a republican, or whatever you want to, when you don't hold many, if any of that party's positions.

It's almost one of those things that you can't self-define, others must place you there based on your actions, not what you claim your stance to be.

Of course, the very definition of Republican and Democrat is so muddled at this point, even within the hearts of each party, that my thoughts on this really aren't too applicable.

Still, I can't count the number of times I've seen MeFi'ers say something like:
"I don't think ____ and I don't agree with ____ and I would never, ever ___, but trust me, I'm a liberal/conservative. I've always said I was."

Well, it doesn't really matter if you said you were.
posted by odinsdream at 6:34 PM on June 25, 2005

Comparing the US treatment of prisoners to Nazis? Durbin.

Swerdloff, I'm trying to be nice, but you're going to have to learn English better. Durbin absouletly did not do this.

Let me say it again, Durbin did not dot this! Seriously, go read what he said. He did nothing of the sort, and you'd only get that idea if you listen to folks like Limbaugh and Hannity.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Read it carefully. It's a completely factual statement: the treatment described by the FBI agent IS more at home in despotic regimes that an American prison (or at least it damn well SHOULD be). What's sad is saying that gets more outrage than the actual un-American and unethical treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo.

It seems pretty obvious to me, but Amnesty International != Democratic party.

The Michael Moore point? Who was just talking about a big tent?
posted by teece at 6:51 PM on June 25, 2005

Well, teece, you provide a lengthy example of a mean republican, and then ask us to give you "a break" with the "liberals are mean bullshit."

The example you cite has little or no bearing on the debate over whether liberal meanness should be intensified or mitigated.

And, "Learn to read?" You could afford to stop being such a caustic fuck.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:55 PM on June 25, 2005

and I think it's one of a few reasons the Democrats keep losing elections. You guys come off as nasty, with no perspective, and ironically, no heart.

Really? I thought democrats were touchy-feely flower childern who like therapy and understanding and moderation. I guess I didn't get the memo...
And that whole "keep loosing elections" things sounds kinda hollow when a president has to be appointed by a Supreme Court the first time around and wins with 2% margin the second. After 8 years of Clinton.
posted by c13 at 6:55 PM on June 25, 2005

posted by swerdloff: And I also support the Iraq war. We broke it, we bought it.

So, when are you planning to enlist?

And I admit that I'm quite happy that the "foreign fighters" that are pouring into Iraq are walking right into our Marines, rather than into the Pizza joint I plan to go to for dinner in a few hours.

Give me a fucking break.
posted by fandango_matt at 6:57 PM on June 25, 2005

How many people get rushed to the hospital to see an orthopedist?
posted by clevershark at 6:58 PM on June 25, 2005

faceonmars writes "As soon as Cheney dies, I'll consider calling for Bush's impeachment."

You say that now, but just waits until he appoints Tom DeLay as his new VP...

You know he would.
posted by clevershark at 7:02 PM on June 25, 2005

It is outrageous for a U.S. Senator to be making analogies, even if somewhat indirect, between the behavior of American soldiers at war and Nazis or Stalinists. It betrayed either a profound animus for American servicemen, a profound sympathy for our enemies, or a profound ignorance of what actually happened in concentration camps and gulags.

If we were making the Guantanamo prisoners dig a canal in ten-degree-below-zero weather with nothing but garden trowels to work with and an 800-calorie-a-day diet to live on, that would be analogous to the Gulag. That, plus killing 50% of their co-religionists worldwide (a round 500 million or so Muslims), and you've got an analogy to the Holocaust.
posted by MattD at 7:04 PM on June 25, 2005

" It betrayed either a profound animus for American servicemen, a profound sympathy for our enemies, or a profound ignorance of what actually happened in concentration camps and gulags."

Actually, it betrayed nothing.

It was the god's truth.
posted by rougy at 7:08 PM on June 25, 2005

Well, we're clearly slacking. But hey, there's at least 3 more years left. Besides, we can already say we torture people, just like the Reds.
posted by c13 at 7:11 PM on June 25, 2005

The example you cite has little or no bearing on the debate over whether liberal meanness should be intensified or mitigated.

Kwantsar, I'll be as caustic as I like, particularly to you. But let me reiterate: learn to read. That statement you make above? That wasn't the argument I was having with swerdloff. If you'd like to have that argument with yourself, you go right ahead.

It is outrageous for a U.S. Senator to be making analogies, even if somewhat indirect, between the behavior of American soldiers at war and Nazis or Stalinists. It betrayed either a profound animus for American servicemen, a profound sympathy for our enemies, or a profound ignorance of what actually happened in concentration camps and gulags.

Sorry MattD, this is riddled with holes. These aren't soldiers at war: these are guards at Guantanamo. The whole "aid and comfort to the enemy" line is a canard from the very beginning. Second, there is no "profound ignorance" of any kind. The way the detainee was treated, according to the FBI witness, is detestable. It would be much more at home in a Russian Gulag or a Russian death camp than the prison of a modern Democracy. That's a statement of fact.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing that out. It is irrelevant and pointless to play the "but Guantanamo is not as bad as a Russian Gulag" game. And that's exactly what it is: a game.

The issue there is the disgusting and un-American treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, not Durbin's language and how right-wing blowhards have seized upon it to avoid addressing the issue, but we should discuss it elsewhere as it really isn't the point of this thread.
posted by teece at 7:14 PM on June 25, 2005

People, people. Let's all refrain from publicly wishing for Cheney's death, please. We wouldn't want to jinx it.
posted by Soliloquy at 7:19 PM on June 25, 2005

MattD is correct, dammit. The USA is treating its prisoners better than the Nazis treated jews, gypsies, and queers.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:31 PM on June 25, 2005

Good. We've settled that the USA is better than Nazi Germany. Glad someone cleared that up.
posted by clevershark at 7:47 PM on June 25, 2005

I wouldn't piss on him if his heart were on fire.

Wow, you're so hardcore. I bet all the chicks dig you.

Look, I don't like Cheney. I actually dislike him more because he's smarter than dubya and able to a lot more damage. If there was a campaign to legally remove the man from office, I'd be the first to sign up.

But I'm not going to celebrate even a bastard like his possible death. Not out of any concern for the man, but because like someone said up thread, I'd like to remember that we are not like them. I expect better from us. I'm disappointed sometimes, but I never stop expecting.

And oh, swerdloff, please, you and the rest of MetaFilter's 101st FenceStraddlers - give it a fucking, everlastin' rest. You're all exactly as "liberal" as Bush's atrophied right testicle

foldy, I don't know swerdloff so I won't speak for him, but not everybody who sees things differently from you is a fasicst or a "fence-sitter," (and trying to understand different veiwpoints, is not a bad thing). But we've been round and round on that, and I had a great time at Coney Island today drinking beer and watching the Mermaids, so I'm not gonna let even Dick Cheney spoil that.

*passes foldy can of Beer Nuts*
posted by jonmc at 8:00 PM on June 25, 2005

Look, I don't like Cheney. I actually dislike him more because he's smarter than dubya and able to a lot more damage. If there was a campaign to legally remove the man from office, I'd be the first to sign up.

But I'm not going to celebrate even a bastard like his possible death. Not out of any concern for the man, but because like someone said up thread, I'd like to remember that we are not like them. I expect better from us. I'm disappointed sometimes, but I never stop expecting.

I pretty much agree with jonmc.

But I'll grant people their rhetorical excesses, and assume they are not really serious.

Maybe I should pass Kwanstar the beer nuts? Wait, I don't have them, fold_and_mutilate does.
posted by teece at 8:05 PM on June 25, 2005

Jonmc dignifies the thread.
posted by moonbird at 8:06 PM on June 25, 2005

And a note to F&M - I'm not liberal?...I support the Constitution and the Filibuster. And I also support the Iraq war.

You support the Constitution. Wow. What a left-leaner. And the Iraq war? Just out out of curiousity, what does this mean:

And I admit that I'm quite happy that the "foreign fighters" that are pouring into Iraq are walking right into our Marines, rather than into the Pizza joint I plan to go to for dinner in a few hours.

Do you honestly think that if there weren't "our Marines" in Iraq, those foreign fighters would actually come pouring into your pizza joint? You really, really believe that?

Just wondering.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:11 PM on June 25, 2005

clever-

keep in mind that 4 out of 5 dentist prefer communist china to the good ole usa.

and nearly dead dick is one of the main reasons that is so.
posted by coyote's bark at 8:12 PM on June 25, 2005

And I admit that I'm quite happy that the "foreign fighters" that are pouring into Iraq are walking right into our Marines, rather than into the Pizza joint I plan to go to for dinner in a few hours.

Do you honestly think that if there weren't "our Marines" in Iraq, those foreign fighters would actually come pouring into your pizza joint? You really, really believe that?

Yeah, swerdloff, this is where you lose me, too.

I live in New York City, my best friend was a paramedic whose unit lost 3 men on 9/11. I have freinds in the military. I'm as concerned and angry about the effects of Islamic terrorism as anyone possibly could be. So, that being said, let me tell you this, the war in Iraq is doing nothing to help the situation and may be making it worse since it gives terrorist recruiters more ammunition to paint the US as enemies of Islam and the Middle East. Saddam, whatever else he's guilty of and the SOB is guilty of a lot, was not behind 9/11. The terrorists were Saudi, and we havent stormed Riyadh yet, and I'm not holding my breath.
posted by jonmc at 8:16 PM on June 25, 2005

Personal sentiment aside, this thread serves to remind how polarized and divided America has become.

The country, pure and simple, is entrenched more deeply every day in an "us against them" mentality.

That is, American against American. The ole magic of misdirection of the masses.

This is an ideology that is far removed from the traditional ideals of republic* and democracy**.

The "You're either for us or against us" buck began circulation from, and should should return to stop directly at, the darkly polished center of the Oval Office desk.

Before an administration takes the action of "forcibly exporting democracy" (an oxymoron, actually)...or "liberating" countries via "our way of life at the point of a gun"...an administration should minimally be certain that they are not promoting a philosophy of division and destabilization of democracy at home.

Otherwise, one has to wonder what the real point of the exercise is...and what outcome is expected.

Seemingly, democracy and world leadership by example at the present time is far less a possibility of policy than intent to distract from adventurism and empire.

Encourage the populace to fight bitterly among themselves. There's a grand design for the evolution of the people who lead the Free World.

Destabilization: It's not just for the Third World anymore.

* re·pub·lic Pronunciation (r-pblk) n. 1.a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president. 1.b. A nation that has such a political order. 2.a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation (d-mkr-s) n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

posted by Dunvegan at 8:20 PM on June 25, 2005

The country, pure and simple, is entrenched more deeply every day in an "us against them" mentality.

That is, American against American. The ole magic of misdirection of the masses.

Sometimes, I wonder if the whole purpose of these fucking war is to create that "us against them" atmosphere for political gain. That atmosphere benefits the right, but the left has often been doing everything it can to help them perhaps unwittingly at times. But the country hasn't been this polarized since Vietnam, and unlike a lot of people, that saddens me.
posted by jonmc at 8:23 PM on June 25, 2005

and if anyone wants a cocktail to go with the beer nuts, I've got some Ukranian Honey-Pepper Vodka that I picked up in Brighton Beach chilling in the freezer.
posted by jonmc at 8:28 PM on June 25, 2005

so the idea that such behavior is costing Democrats elections is just absurd.

Not really...engaging in "nasty behavior" is a distraction. They think they're losing because they aren't nasty enough but they're missing the point. In and of itself nastiness doesn't cost them or gain them anything. What costs them is a perceived weakness on defense and a lack of enunciated vision on nearly everything else.

Rage at the opposing party does not a platform make. It's tough for most people to figure out what the hell the Dems stand for (other than opposing every proposal the Republicans advance.) And that's not enough.
posted by dsquid at 8:28 PM on June 25, 2005

What costs them is a perceived weakness on defense and a lack of enunciated vision on nearly everything else.

I would agree, dsquid, to a certain extent. But that doesn't really have anything to do with nastiness. Indeed, Democrats would have done a lot better in the last couple elections if they had been much more forceful with respect to the things they disliked about Bush. Some of that would have been nasty, sure, but not all of it, and it would have defined what Democrats were.

The milquetoast Democrat that doesn't want to ruffle any feathers is a large part of the problem (but not the only problem).

But to me, the Democrat's biggest problem is that they are absolutely, completely and totally out-foxed when it comes to media management. They are getting their ass handed to them by the Republicans on that front. Republican ideas get heard far and wide. Democratic ones don't, at least not to nearly the same degree. And one of the primary reasons is a complete loss of any ability to get ideas out through the media, in its various and sundry forms.
posted by teece at 8:36 PM on June 25, 2005

Well, my thought is that since America is a democracy, we should consider seriously honoring the fifth defininion of the work mentioned above:

"...social equality and respect for the individual within a community."

If that means respecting the political "other"...then that's what I intend to do.

(Perhaps just putting a "br" in front of "other" would be a reasonable start.)
posted by Dunvegan at 8:39 PM on June 25, 2005

Silly Americans with their conscience-salving claims that human life is somehow sacred -- and their unironic demonstrations that some human lives are sacreder than others.

He may be a fuckhead but I'd rather he was a live fuckhead in jail than a dead fuckhead being mourned over by thousands.

Yeah, pretty much. Except that there's a fart's chance in a typhoon that he'll actually end up in prison, unfortunately.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:40 PM on June 25, 2005

Do you honestly think that if there weren't "our Marines" in Iraq, those foreign fighters would actually come pouring into your pizza joint? You really, really believe that?

As we speak, Operation Swerdloff and the 101st Pizza Defense Corps are being deployed to protect his pizza joint from terrorists.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:48 PM on June 25, 2005

And one of the primary reasons is a complete loss of any ability to get ideas out through the media, in its various and sundry forms.

And that's strange, seeing as how liberals control CNN, MSNBC, the biggest NY and LA newspapers, the major news-tabloids, public radio, and all of the broadcast networks. With so much access, why can't they deliver? I posit that they are so in love with attacking and shooting down the Republicans that they have *let their own idea developing machine become weak*.

Until they get some ideas and develop the skill in selling those ideas to the American people, they're going to be standing on the sidelines. It's a shame, because I think we're stronger when two equals are sparing in the arena of ideas.
posted by dsquid at 8:48 PM on June 25, 2005

do the 'terrists even eat pizza?
posted by coyote's bark at 8:59 PM on June 25, 2005

I'm not sure I agree with dsquid -- I think the mainstream media transmitted Kerry's campaign talking points quite well, and hardly hesitated to put the worst possible light on Bush ... pretty much what they did for Clinton against Bush's dad twelve years before.

The important difference was that (a) we developed a new base of voters in exurban evangelicals who pay little attention to mainstream media and (b) we developed alternative and new media to reach swing voters when they were exclusively reached by mainstream media in 1992.
posted by MattD at 9:08 PM on June 25, 2005

"I just landed at Vail airport, right next to the Vice President’s Gulfstream jet" has to be the most pretentious opening line of a blog post, ever.
posted by deanc at 9:23 PM on June 25, 2005

I still think it's a lack of ideas, not a lack of communicating ideas, that's been killing the Dems. As you say, they have no problem communicating their attacks.

This is the reason getting down into the fray with the Republicans is hurting them. It's a distraction from what they really should be doing.
posted by dsquid at 9:25 PM on June 25, 2005

Wow, you're so hardcore. I bet all the chicks dig you.

...
posted by Jon-o at 9:40 PM on June 25, 2005

As a Canuck listening to The Daily Show interview with Howard Dean, I gotta say that I was impressed with the guy.

I think he has the right idea: it is time to aggressively call a spade a spade. It is time to demand social equality.

I'm in a country that is decidedly more liberal than the USA to the point that what we call "conservative," you would consider "democrat."

From what I've seen of the Democratic party in the USA, it's in sad, sad shape. It has no spine: it doesn't stand up for what is right. It wants to waffle, because, geeshucks, everyone should get to be right.

Fuck. That. It is goddamn right that all citizens receive equal access to healthcare. No fucking way should someone go without a doctor if I can help it. I always speak out against privitization, and I know that when it comes right down to it, every decent person will agree with me.

And the same goes for access to education, access to church, access to vote, and freedom from intrusion.

Yes, I'm an idealist in some ways, and that's where the conservatives get to rein in some of this. We need to be able to do the most social good possible, with a fixed amount of income, in a responsible manner.

It's time for the Democratic party to deman what is right. Quit being a party of useless wimps.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 PM on June 25, 2005

And I admit that I'm quite happy that the "foreign fighters" that are pouring into Iraq are walking right into our Marines, rather than into the Pizza joint I plan to go to for dinner in a few hours.

Is there any ethical justification for this "flypaper" strategy? I'm totally mystified by the argument that says, let's encourage terrorists to fight us in Iraq so that Iraqi civilians can be collateral damage instead of Americans.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:47 PM on June 25, 2005

Armitage, count me as one supporter of the war who doesn't think it's doing anything in the short run about terrorists in U.S. pizza parlors.

I believe that what's keeping terrorists out of pizza parlors in the U.S. is what's keeping them out of pizza parlors in Israel: a wall against infiltrators (literal for Israel, a construct of immigration controls and intelligence in the U.S.) and the refusal of the respective domestic Muslim minorities to cooperate with their foreign co-religionists in terrorist enterprises.

When the history of the post-9/11 period is written I think there'll be quite a lengthy chapter on all of the terrorists and wannabes who were quietly handed over to the feds by American Muslim community leaders.
posted by MattD at 10:03 PM on June 25, 2005

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.

(via Gandalf)
posted by jlub at 10:14 PM on June 25, 2005

Manhattan bore the brunt of the 9/11 attacks. It also voted 80-20 against Bush.

There's a lesson in there somewhere, although it may prove too subtle.
posted by clevershark at 10:22 PM on June 25, 2005

RockCorpse wins.

Well, made me laugh. Nothing like a good vagina pun.
posted by sharpener at 11:01 PM on June 25, 2005

.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:08 PM on June 25, 2005

then again, you could use a little sharpening.
posted by quonsar at 11:08 PM on June 25, 2005

Ok, in seriousness now, a VP dying at such a time is going to make international goings-on even *more* volatile. Cheney dying is going to set off a bunch of bad shit.

Cheney, as a person, and as politician has made many very poor decisions; his no-longer-making-such-poor decisions isn't necessarily a bad thing; the problem is - the devil we know vs the devil we don't.

I would *not* be surprised if his sucessor/his post-mortem political responses got even more radical, which would definitely be a bad thing.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 11:12 PM on June 25, 2005

Bush has plummeting approval ratings, 49% of americans say Bush is responsible for provoking the war in iraq while 44% say Hussein is.

Really, democrats continuing to loose elections?

Oh and just about made me cry. Republicans all say such nice things about the opposition?


And back on subject, Bush will appoint someone significantly more odious if Cheney croaks.
posted by Freen at 11:23 PM on June 25, 2005

I wonder if Cheney IS on a suicide mission... maybe he knows his heart is about to explode and cares less about that than supporting the neo-cons. Maybe he wants to die and have the country mourn his death and have FoxNews make a martyr of him. Because he knows that if he doesn't die while in office, no one will give a flying fuck.
posted by Embryo at 12:35 AM on June 26, 2005

He probably just needed his batteries replaced. I hear they start 'ghosting' after a certain peroid of time in most robots.
posted by poon at 2:37 AM on June 26, 2005

posted by RylandDotNet at 2:46 AM on June 26, 2005

Really, democrats continuing to loose elections?

Yes, really. The outcome of polls depends in large part to the way the question is framed, and last time I checked Bush isn't up for election anytime soon. :P
posted by dsquid at 8:08 AM on June 26, 2005

I wonder if Cheney (or any of that crowd) will ever do a deathbed confession and renunciation a la Lee Atwater?

I highly doubt it, nor will he ever go to jail--maybe that's the difference between "go fuck yourself" assholes and regular ones?
posted by amberglow at 8:36 AM on June 26, 2005

And that's strange, seeing as how liberals control CNN, MSNBC, the biggest NY and LA newspapers, the major news-tabloids, public radio, and all of the broadcast networks.

Is there any evidence that liberals control cable news? As far as I can remember, the only liberal to have his own cable talk show was Phil Donahue. He had the highest ratings of any show on MSNBC but got the ax because the network didn't want to be seen as "questioning the administration."

Off the top of my head here's a list of conservatives who have been given shows on cable news:
-Alan Keyes
-Dennis Miller
-The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board
-Michael Savage
-Tucker Carlson (3 times! on CNN, MSNBC and PBS)
-Joe Scarborough
-Lawrence Kudlow
And that's not even counting Fox News.

And if the NYTimes is so liberal, why did they allow Judith Miller to singlehandedly legitimize Bush administration claims about Iraq's WMDs in the buildup to war? She ran with every lie fed to her, which then allowed admin officials to go on the Sunday talk shows and say things like "even the New York Times reports that Iraq has an active WMD program," when it was often those very same officials, or their underlings, feeding the misinformation to Miller.
posted by crank at 8:58 AM on June 26, 2005

Well, that's it, time to redirect metafilter to democraticunderground.
posted by darukaru at 9:13 AM on June 26, 2005

how about a simple "get well soon" guys?
posted by cpchester at 9:41 AM on June 26, 2005

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

That bears repeating.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:47 AM on June 26, 2005

If Cheney dies (and I wish that on no one), things will get better. Unfortunately, they will get worse before they get better.

Bush will nominate someone extremely partisan (Rove?) for VP, and there the shit will fly as both houses fight like mad to stop him. All the while, Bush will be claiming that Democrats are hurting the country by not letting a VP in to do the important job ("of fighting terrorists", or of "protecting the American people" or of "promoting peace around the world"). This will make the fight over Bolton look like a cakewalk, and eventually the Democrats will cave, but the Republicans will look like utter asshats over the issue.

That last part is why they really want/need to keep Cheney in office. I, for one, hope he lives but decides to vacate the office to allow the above to happen. Overall it will be better for America and the world.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:53 AM on June 26, 2005

List of prominent TV Liberals? Anyone?
posted by Freen at 11:49 AM on June 26, 2005

A crappy post is one with no real content that leads posters to display ignorant and spitefull opinions.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:28 PM on June 26, 2005

But to me, the Democrat's biggest problem is that they are absolutely, completely and totally out-foxed when it comes to media management.

Don't get me started on the lameness of the Dems BUT the fact is that the Repubs 0wn the media from the lowest bootlicker to the top asskisser.

If the GOP doesn't want a story to appear in the media, it just doesn't. The only reason that the 10 Downing Street memos appeared, after almost a month, is that over a million people signed petitions to get it on the news. We can't do that for every news story!

Over 1800 would-be protesters were arrested at the RNC in New York. Most of them never even got a chance to protest -- they were preemptively arrested. Almost all the charges were completely dropped, when video evidence produced by the defendants proved that the charges (based on sworn statements by police officers) were almost all a complete pack of lines from beginning to end (this is a felony, by the way -- do you think one of these officers will be charged?)

Now, aside from the political junkie hardcore, I've talked to average, well-informed Americans from all over this country, and none, not one, of them had any idea that this had happened, that even one person was arrested, let alone 1800, that there was any dissent at all.

This was big news outside America -- Americans outside of New York appear to have no idea that anything happened at all.

Note that the "liberal" Times lead the drumbeat for war in the runup to the Invasion of Iraq. None of the mainstream, "liberal" media outside San Francisco came out against the war, when it came down to it -- they questioned the means, not the end. The largest political gatherings ever on the planet, the anti-war marches before the start, were mentioned only in passing.

After 9/11, all the difficult questions were completely bypassed. Why didn't they scramble planes to intercept the hijackers, as they do a dozen times a year with an intercept time of less than 10 minutes? Why didn't the government give us *one single piece of photo or video evidence placing even one hijacker on a hijacked plane*? (The one piece of evidence shows Atta getting onto a *connecting flight* -- worse, it's obviously been tampered with as there are two separate timestamps on each frame, a small one on the bottom of the frame with the "wrong" time and a larger one in the *center* of the screen with the "right" time).

There are dozens of such facts, all equally incriminating. It's not that I have some theory about 9/11 -- I do not, and I think the standard theory is perhaps mostly correct. It's just that the government hasn't deigned to give us the slightest evidence to back their case.

Now, this stuff would make great newspaper and even better TV. If one network or paper had done it, their news viewership would have skyrocketed.

By contrast, consider how much attention the Monica Lewinsky case got. The government spent three times as much on Monica as on the entire 9/11 investigation. But the media spent at least 10 times as many column inches/minutes on Monica over the 9/11 investigation -- many news "outlets" barely covered the 9/11 commission at all.


So it appears that the media is 0wned completely and thoroughly. The Dems are a sorry lot (except for Howard Dean, who was, if you remember, completely sandbagged by those same media) but it's not their fault that the media is totally and utterly corrupt.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:35 PM on June 26, 2005

" List of prominent TV Liberals? Anyone?"

Phil Donahue, he comes on at 3am on the Public Access channel, you can't miss him
posted by Hands of Manos at 12:55 PM on June 26, 2005

Is Dick Cheney the New 'Baghdad Bob'?
"Is it just me, or is Vice President Cheney, who repeated Thursday that the Iraq insurgency is in its final throes, starting to sound like former Saddam spokesman, "Baghdad Bob"?"
posted by madamjujujive at 6:31 PM on June 26, 2005

Well, that depends on how you define "final" and "throes", doesn't it.
posted by troutfishing at 8:10 PM on June 26, 2005

He was misquoted. He said "fine ol' throws," referring to how well they could hit a target.
posted by soyjoy at 2:29 PM on June 27, 2005

Did Vice President Cheney receive impromptu medical care Friday in the cardiac unit of a Colorado hospital?
posted by ericb at 9:29 AM on June 28, 2005

Don't toe the line? Not one of us.

The Stepford Liberals.

I refer you to Scoop Jackson.
posted by swerdloff at 3:40 PM on June 29, 2005