This afternoon, CNN.com captioned the video of President Bush engaging in ‘cowboy diplomacy’ and even has him uttering an expletive.
CNN.com - “Not realizing his remarks were being picked up by a microphone at the summit of world leaders, Bush bluntly expressed his frustration with the actions of Hezbollah.”
Click here to see the captioned CNN video (might need to link directly from CNN.com if you have a popup blocker installed)
A hearing office colleague reports that CNN *bleeped* out his colorful language in this broadcast. However, if one watches the clip carefully, the captioning clearly spells out his expletive and does nothing to hide it.
I wonder if the FCC will be slapping CNN with a penalty for captioning this vulgar language? The FCC rules suggest that it’s worthy of a fine regardless of the context or communication medium (spoken or captioned).
And yes, it’s been a somewhat slow Monday. :)
Edit: A hearing friend has confirmed that the above, online clip is unedited and that one can clearly hear the expletive. The office colleague clarified that the CNN TV clip she heard had the expletive censored.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
@ Is In the Eye of the Beholder
100 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
is this what we would call a war-room malfunction?
That’s pretty funny - for a JM joke. :)
Yes, Bush may have used “cowboy language” but please let’s not forget that it wasn’t intended to be broadcast publicitly, so let’s not turn this into another Bush-bashing post (who doesn’t use “colorful” language in private?). As for the Middle-East events, Hezbollah and its backers definitely needs to stop the s*** they’ve been doing otherwise they’ll be embarked on a long and painful war that’ll cost them dearly.
The expletive comment was inappropriate, and it does not reflect the leadership we desperately need to guide us through this crisis.
I agree, I dont understand why the media is makingsuch a huge fuss out of this! I guess its just a slow Monday all around…
It’s true it was not meant to be broadcast publicly, but the fact of the matter is that it was spoken in a public forum (the G8 luncheon), hence there were microphones around. It’s ridiculous to think that a President would be unaware of that.
it’s not about the s-bomb itself…but the context where and how it was used, and the fact it was captured on camera for ALL THE WORLD to see: no less vivid, damning imagery than ford falling down the steps of air force one, bush the elder puking in the japanese prime minister’s lap, and of course, w’s got so many “my pet goat” moments that he could literally make an album. it’s the statesmanship, decorum, and dignity, the lack of it which is on display and being confused with the bleating choruses of “w said a BAD word!”
as for the media, it’s not all about the news but the ratings. we’re living in a society generally addicted to reality television.
some entertaining, enlightening reading below…enjoy.
from Mo Rocca:
Waking up this morning and turning on the TV to see a British gentleman leaning over a boorish American, the Brit listening patiently as the American talked through his food, my first thought was “Why the hell is CNN running clips from that crappy 80s sitcom Mr. Belvedere?”
Of course it was Tony Blair, not Mr. Belvedere. Mr. Belvedere would have politely but firmly corrected the president on his misuse of the word irony. (Even Bob Uecker, the Bush character in Mr. Belvedere, could tell you that there’s nothing ironic about having to ask Syria to restrain Hezbollah.)
Maybe Blair is more like Cadbury to Bush’s Richie Rich. Of course we all wish Blair were as wise as Alfred and Bush as capable as Batman.
In any case, the newsworthy(?) expletive, an encore to Bush and Cheney calling New York Times’ Adam Clymer an ******* during 2000, was no accident at all. Bush knew the mic was on. But we’re supposed to think it’s an authentic moment, that we’ve heard the real Bush. This somehow gives the opinion expressed more power. It’s pretty clever - and it works. (Loads more people, including me, are now asking what the hell Kofi Annan intends to do.) It’s the best way to strike a hit against opponents like The New York Times and United Nations.
from Arianna Huffington:
“President Bush’s already depressing world tour hit a new low today with his “oops, is thing on?” conversation with Tony Blair.
I haven’t heard dialogue this addle-brained since Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. But these aren’t a pair of stoned out slackers looking to score some burgers. These are the leader of the free world and his faithful British sidekick, trying to keep the conflict in the Middle East from kickstarting World War III.
Yes, on one level, it’s great comedy — as funny as anything SNL or The Onion could come up with. “Yo, Blair!”? Bush’s kindergarten insight that “Russia’s big and so is China”. The dripping with sarcasm frat-boy banter:
Bush: Thanks for the sweater; it was awfully thoughtful of you. I know you picked it out yourself.
Blair: Oh, absolutely!
What was next, the two of them high-fiving and yelling “Psyche!”?
But on another level, the conversation was the most dispiriting exchange I could imagine hearing at a moment like this.
Has there ever been a more feeble statement by a U.S. president than “See, the irony is what they really need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this **** and it’s over”?
Churchill it ain’t.
Indeed, it says all you need to know about how this president’s disastrous mismanagement of foreign policy has undermined America’s standing in the world.
The Middle East is teetering on the brink, and the President of the United States is reduced to sitting on the sidelines, helplessly ruminating on what “they” need to do to try and broker a settlement.
Even worse, he tells Blair: “I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen.”
You want irony? How about a president who has shown nothing but disdain for the UN, wistfully fantasizing about being bailed out by an organization his man John Bolton felt could lose 10 stories of its headquarters without it making “a bit of difference.”
You want impotence? How about a president who is so paralyzed he doesn’t even tell Kofi to make the call.
from Bob Cesca:
Under the newly passed Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, signed by President Bush on June 15, individual broadcasters can be fined $325,000 for using an “excretory” remark on television during daytime hours. While I’m on government fines, it’s worth noting the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrant is $250 per worker.
But you know, at least the GOP’s big government apparatus is going after guys who talk about poop on television…
Like President Bush, who said the word “****” on CNN today.
Now granted, CNN is a cable network and not necessarily included under the guidelines of the new law. Even though Senator Ted Stevens wants to extend the law to cover cable and satellite, the law only covers over-the-air broadcast television and radio. Additionally, the president’s blooper was incidental, just like Howard Stern’s incidental use of the word “blumpkin” for which he was fined by the FCC without any explanation regarding why “blumpkin” is suddenly an obscenity.
Never-the-less, how many children, home for Summer break, heard the President of the United States say “****” on television? How MANY!? Sweet merciful crap! The children!
President Bush during his remarks at the BDEA signing ceremony:
“…the language is becoming coarser during the times when it’s more likely children will be watching television. It’s a bad trend, a bad sign. Since 2000, the number of indecency complaints received by the FCC has increased from just hundreds per year to hundreds of thousands. In other words, people are saying, we’re tired of it, and we expect the government to do something about it.”
Of course 99.8 percent of those complaints came from one fringe group of people, the Parents Television Council, using a computerized form letter. And of course there’s about a bazillion other things more pressing for government to “do something about,” but which the president and Congress won’t bother with because it promotes big government.
So may I suggest that — for the sake of the children — President Bush be the first person to be penalized under the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005? $325,000 in the government swear jar to set a good example because profanity on television is a bad trend, a bad sign. In addition, Senators Brownback and Stevens along with Rep. Upton get to wash his mouth out with soap. Perhaps spank him, like a good traditional parent. Because President Bush, a role model for children all across this flat Earth, said “****” on television.
Or… He could ask Congress to repeal this ridiculous law which only succeeds in shitting on the First Amendment and furthering the president’s caricature as a major league *******.
Rob, cool on you for posting this - I owe you a drink if you ever hit new york! I read about this earlier and figured it just wouldn’t be captioned anywhere… Plus it’s a cool, creative way to curse on bleeper-laden DeafDc.com… :)
Err…it was the UN who wouldn’t act upon to enforce their resolutions agreed to by the UN body. The UN is nothing more than an utter farce paying homage to despots and dictators acting as representatives of their country at the UN. What now? You’re going to let the UN emplace blue-helmented soldiers in Gaza as peacekeepers? More like the Hamas will use them as shields instead.
Geez, people. Tying themselves over into a knot over this accidental “S” word intended for off air exclamatory.
Way too much time on your hands for this.
Although not the topic of this blog, I definitely agree -maybe a topic for a future post? Middle East and UN politics, anyone? :)
Good point, McConnell. Makes Bush look like an ******* for going to them for help, doesn’t it?
Actually, it’s the other way around. It’s the UN that’s looking like ******** for even voting when they never meant to enforce them in the first place.
Looks like the topic is about !#!#^!#$%^!@4 words now?
And guess what, the UN *already* had a special force positioned at the Israeli/Lebanese border with the objective of… preventing Hezbollah from launching attacks into Israel. Tells you how efficient the UN is when it comes to enforcing peace in hot spots, eh?
Uh…UN special forces around Israel have always resulted in an increase of volatile activity on Israel’s borders even before this little war got started.
And we look up to the UN for solutions?
Oh please, let me grab a bucket.
What is your standard for a good army, then? No bad guys win at all? Then the US army isn’t very successful, either. ;) I don’t think that’s a very good stick to beat anyone over the head with - but you can try. A more effective weapon would be pointing out the delay of reaction in the UN due to the need for discussion and consensus among nations, but this is still necessary - no way around it, unless you’re not too into democracy :)
Are you putting the UN’s army up on a pedestal?
Lol.
That’s “army”…as in “special forces”…as in “effective.”
McConnell,
ok- so you don’t like the UN. Fair enough.
What would YOU suggest as an alternative? It’d be nice to hear what you suggest in the way of a remedy instead of what you DON’T like.
Israel made the first move. They pulled out of Gaza as a good faith effort. Forcibly removed all Israelis that have lived there for years. Not a popular move according to many Israelis. So, what happened since then? They’ve been building their rockets cache ever since. They’ve built tunnels. Even Egypt didn’t like this since it has created anarchy for their country as well. They’re objecting to any unilateral withdrawal by Israelis out of the West Bank, too.
Ever since Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip last year August 2005, many rockets have been fired regularly into nearby Jewish communities. The Hamas group was elected into power. Both Israeli and Palestinian officials have also stated that al-Qaida has infiltrated the territory of Egypt. It was Egypt who announced the terrorists who carried out this recent April’s deadly triple-bomb blasts in the Sinai resort town of Dahab. They were trained for the operation in the Gaza Strip with local Palestinians. They said Gaza-based terrorists helped finance the attack.
Wonder of wonders.
In fact, it was the Israeli forces that help keep it more stabilized for neighboring countries than did the UN “special Smurf forces”
All this can be stopped if the two kidnapped soldiers are simply returned…unharmed.
Your move.
So your answer is the solution is the return of the two soldiers? Very optimistic of you, I must say. Olmert’s stated that in addition to the soldier’s safe return, Hezbollah must disarm (which they won’t do). Hezbollah wants a cease-fire, followed by prisoner exchange talks (which Israel so far refuses to do). Stalemate, no?
The rest of your post is background/history. I’m asking you, since you don’t like the UN, what is YOUR alternative to the UN? You deride the UN, and to be fair, the UN has/had problems. Ok, no UN– what then?
(I may not respond for a while– going out of town soon– but WILL follow this as much as I can)
you’re pretty funny, mike, but not very good at discussion. I didn’t put anything up on a pedestal. I asked you a direct question. See the question mark >?
And I, too, asked you a question. The answer is let the Israeli army do it. They’ve managed to keep the peace far better than did the UN. What’s the UN going to do if they get fired upon by the Hezbollahs? Fire back?
Dave,
I hinted at letting the Israeli forces do the job. Even Egypt ojbected to Israel’s pullout of the Gaza strip since it’ll leave Egypt vulnerable to terrorists exploits which we saw in April with the bombing at one of Egypt’s resort hotel.
UN has no real reason to keep the committment should things go hairy. Will they even fire back in defense? Seriously. Will they? Yeah, right. And risk being the scorn of the world for starting a war lest we be reminded how many Islamic dictators there are sitting at the UN.
Let Israel army do it. Maybe with the help of NATO. Of course, American troops could help but the MSM will just bash them to no end demoralizing the troops at every possible means.
Like I said, Dave, your move.
http://www.nysun.com/article/35989
Islamic terrorist groups terrorizing Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs..etc..
Israel tried to occupy southern Lebanon for twenty years and it was a complete failure. Sorry, but your comments don’t fly. But nice try. Of course we should learn from that example in Iraq.
Now I’ve answered your question - what about you making up an answer to mine? Or have you been working on it? Don’t let me disturb you.
Um…twenty years ago Lebanon had the PLO terrorists who repeatedly attacked Israel. So, Israelis going to sit by and do nothing? They had to stop the attack. They had the right to defend themselves, including going into Lebanon to stop the incursion. They only “occupied” ->southern
Just as I have suggested earlier, get NATO to guard the borders.
Israel Signals It May Accept Foreign Forces on Border.
“The Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, said Israel was interested in a NATO-led force and the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, spoke of one comprised of European Union members with combat experience and the authority to take control of Lebanon’s border and crossing points.
American officials said that they too were open to the idea but did not expect American troops to be part of the force.
“It’s a new idea, we’ll certainly take it seriously,” John R. Bolton, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said on the CNN program “Late Edition.” ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07.....nted=print
Certainly a better options than a UN led force. NATO has a better record than the UN.
President Reagan (Pro-Israel) done differently than Dubya. He PHONED the Israeli government to stop the Lebanon bombings (Stop this madness!). Thaf was the kind of leadership we embraced for our country.
GWB and his cronies are just the empty suits which they rather whine and mock the international organization. He and his adminstration already reduce the United Nations’ status to “meant nothing”.
Israel planned the mass bombings of Lebanon and Palestine for about five years since 2000. It waited and waited for the right moment to destroy the Hezz…. after the abduction and killing of two Israeli soliders. Israel seen her own soliders as precious resources since her population was not large as the United States.
GWB portrayed himself as a moralist and savior of the saturated liberal America. He done almost nothing about abortion issue for six years (That’s why many people voted for him because of the abortion issue, Believe it or not! Many people told me about why they voted for Bush in the first place).
GWB had a chance for five years to resolve the Israel-Palestine situation. He choose to tilt toward Israel in the public way. That led to the resentment of the Arab world against the United States fawning over Israel.
I am not pro-Arab or Palestine. Any good leaders know how not to create resentment or side with someone in obvious way.
GWB seems the “Churchill” wannabe himself since he was indirectly related (blood ties) to Winston Churchill.
Israel made the Palestine life unbearing and restless. Her policy of reactions to the infitidafas in the 80s were sorely mistaken which created the new generations of fighters against Israel. How illogical of Israel closed down the Palestine schools and left the Palestine kids restless and had nothing to do. They ended up involving with the infitadia movement - two to three generations, instead of the leftovers from the PLO.
Don’t Israel, Palestine, the Arab World and the United States learn anything in past 50 years?
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
Sharon initiated a plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip. This disengagement was executed between August and September 2005. Doing this was a bit of (stupid) good faith effort but by doing so only allowed Islamic terrorists to be much closer to Israeli’s cities and towns and stocked all kinds of arsenals in the Gaza strip. Who isn’t surprised? Israel also withdrew from southern Lebanon a few years earlier.
On June 28, 2006, after Hamas militants crossed the border from the Gaza Strip and captured an Israeli soldier, Israel began Operation Summer Rains and sent troops into the territory to get the kidnapped soldier. On July 12, Hezbollah militants captured 2 more Israeli soldiers, sparking the 2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis. Hezbollah has since declared “open war” on Israel.Both Hamas and Hezbollah said that they will only release the soldiers in a prisoner exchange with Israel; however, Israel has said that they will not engage in any prisoner exchanges and will only end the conflicts if they agree to suspend all rocket attacks into Israel and unconditionally release the soldiers.
How much you want to bet those kidnapped Israeli soldiers are dead?
Now, terrorist groups are saying they are not fighting “for a piece of land” but waging a religious war aimed at restoring a religious caliphate, or government, throughout the Muslim world. Why? Because Israel is on the front lines of the global Jihad.
Go figure. Yeah. Solve everything with a phone call and negotiate with terrorists.
Smart move.
What about Golan heights, and West Bank and further expansion of settlements (which are illegal per UN resolution)? Seems a bit hypocratic don’t you think when you expect another country to abide by passed resolutions, when you yourself are not willing to comply?
So, ok. Give back the Golan Heights a la Gaza strip. Right? This’ll only allow the terrorists to move in closer to the cities of Israel. The terrorists, once they got their Gaza strip back, they began firing rockets into nearby Jewish communities.
So much for their word of honor. I guess you are expecting the same for the Golan Heights pullout on good faith?
Seriously.
Since the occupation of land is supposedly “the bone of contention”, Israel should move out, don’t you think? My point is how can Israel expect the UN resolution to be honored if they themselved are not willing to do it?
Let me ask you this. How many times a cease fire agreement was called upon by the terrorists? How many times they honored the agreements.
As for the Golan Heights, before Israel independence in 1947, the Syrians in the Golan Heights shelled almost constantly at nearby Jewish communities. When Syria attacked Israel in 1967, Israel was forced to defend herself, again, and this was known to be part of the 6 day war. Syria lost the battle and Golan Heights. There is no such thing as Israel occupying the land. Syria attacked without provocation. Syria and was pushed back. Syria lost. Israel regained control of the land so it won’t happen again. And with the lessons learned of Gaza and southern Lebanon are that when Israel returned them back over to those Islamic countries, they attacked later on.
I agree with you where in the governtments have to take control of and reign in terrorists. No arguments there. But the bottom line is ISRAEL IS STILL OCCUPYING WEST BANK AND EXPANDING. I believe that there can be no viable solution unless and until they stop encroaching further and withdraw by negotiating. I know Sharon left Gaza, the fact of the matter is Gaza was occupied, hence he left it. Why not the West Bank? Too economically profitable?
That being said, I am not supporting what the Hezbollah/Hamas are doing, nor do I agree with their philosophy/tactics.
I get your point. I don’t see much difference between the two groups at this point. Both are mired in blood, both are driven by religious extremism and the desire for a homeland run the way They Want It Done….
Better read and update your history….
http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html
Lovely that you’re masquerading as a history professor this morning, but I respectfully think HISTORY is part of the problem. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians are obsessed about history; while it’s good to be aware of one’s past and understand how we got here, it’s getting in the way of possible solutions.
The two have more in common than they think– throughout history, no country has wanted either of them.
No. Just I that I’m acutely aware of the history. There is a difference.
So, are you saying that Israel should get out? And that Israel does not have the right to defend herself?
Yes, I think they should get out. As for “Israel does not have the right to defend herself,” sure it does. So does Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other actors on the world stage. To pretend otherwise is hypocritical at best. But I think the actions Israel’s taken have been poorly thought out. It’s a risky gamble on Olmert’s part.
As long as we’re discussing history, I’d love to know your take on the Irgun. As much as people would love to believe otherwise, the Palestinians and their supporters are far from the only terrorists in the history of Palestine/Israel.
There is a difference when the outside groups are doing the attacking than the other way around. Heck, even when Israel won by war taking the Sinai Peninsula did they return it back to Egypt. Whoever heard of that before?
Funny thing you should mention about the Irgun. Several Jewish organizations classified the Irgun as a terrorist organization. Now, that would be like, what, 50 or 60 years ago now?
Compared to how many current Islamic terrorist organizations working in and around Israel, the Gaza strip, and southern Lebanon? Who would no doubt strap a bomb on their own baby in a crowded streets full of Israelis and Arabs.
And why should Israel get out? It was the UN who gave the territories over to Israel (see UN Resolution 181).
No. Sorry, Dave. The land belong to the Israelis as mandated by the 1947 UN resolution. It was the Palestines who started the war against Israel in 1948.
See the link I provided earlier.
What about the resolution passed by UN that states that Israel is still occupying territory? Why is that not being enforced?
Er….Israel won the land in a *defensive* war. And now, the UN says “No fair. Give it back.”
“Occupied territory” is a fictional term concocted by, who else? The U.N. It’s a misnomer. It should be called as a “disputed territory.”
Israel has a legitimate historical and national claim to the disputed territory. Even a Biblical right to the disputed territory.
Then the same can be told of both Christians and Muslims. All three religions have a religious right to the territory. But we are not talking about religious rights, atleast I am not. My problem is with the fact that only certain UN resolutions are being implemented or wanting to be implemented but not the others. Since you say “occupied territory” is a term that is concocted, let’s for a minute go with disputed territory. This so called disputed territory is now being occupied by Israel and is being expanded as we speak. Don’t you find it a bit hypocratic that they want Hezbollah disarmed (which they should) per the UN resolution, yet refuse to acknowledge the resolution against them?
If have noticed the history of Israel giving back the land once “occupied” by Israeli forces but only to be attacked a few years down the road once forces have regrouped in that once “occupied” territories.
Tell once again who doesn’t recognize what. Israel believes in co-existence. Always has. It’s the other way around that Islamic idiots are not recognizing anything other that Israel must go.
From Iraq the model by Iraqi bloggers where comments made by other Iraqis about the conflict in Israel and Lebanon.
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.c.....flock.html
“Hamas with their radical false-heroic speech opened the door for extremists in Gaza and Damascus to open a battlefront that will harm the innocent Palestinian citizen and destroy the peace process. Hamas has long been against the peace process and has long worked on halting it”
Ahmed Talib al-Taii: Baghdad/Iraq.
“There are trends that still live by the past and its dark residues of killing ignorance.
We are the sons of today and our minds must develop at a pace close to that of intellectual development of the world. We cannot solve issues with violence, murder and destruction of nations. We have to use logic and dialogue to convince those you disagree with, and once we do that we will have defeated our enemies, at least on the political arena which enables us to win the moral case before other nations.
Reckless policies that believe only in rifles, cannons and slayings belong to the past and will bring nothing but further destruction and chaos.
Strange they speak in the name of Islam while the prophet of Islam was tolerant in dealing with his enemies [whenever he could] for the sake of his message. Those who slay people like sheep are far from the values of that honorable message”
Hashim al-Tabatabai: Baghdad/Iraq.
“Our hearts go out to the family of the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped by some Palestinian group. We share your suffering and we fully support anything you do to free your missing soldier”
Hassan al-Shami: Baghdad/Iraq.
“I wonder how much time and blood it will take until Arabs and Muslims realize that the world is not the property of their ancestors and that God is not a trademark of their minds and that terror is a dead-end that leads only to more destruction.
Israel is a civilized country defending herself from barbaric savages whose minds are made of stone…minds that do not want to believe they are living in the 21st century.
What’s happening to the Palestinians despite its cruelty is going to be a good lesson for them to learn they must clear their community off the hateful fundamentalist terror mentality…[Quranic verse] “God will not change people until they change what’s within themselves”…but, will you change?!!”
Abu Ayoub al-Iraqi.
Interesting comments from Muslims. And there are many more where it came from, too.
wish I could edit. A little sloppy writing with some words missing. Also, note the time difference. Well within 15 minutes. Editing feature doesn’t show up.
:(
Just like you quoted the Muslims from the site, there are many Israelis that do not agree with what their governtment is doing (just like many of us do not agree with what our government is doing in Iraq). That however is not the point. The point I am trying to make is that just like the UN passed the resolution to give Israel the land, they passed a resolution requiring Israel to leave the occupied territories. So how is it right to still stay in occupied territory, i.e. Disputed land?
I am laughing. “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” The word “damn” in this famous quote was a no-no when the Gone with the Wind movie was made in 1939.
I wonder what First Lady Laura Bush is thinking now. Remember she had to talk with her daughter about sticking out her tongue.
That was her father, George Bush, who warned her, while in the presidential car, sticking her tongue out to the media outside. She did. And he said something to the effect of, “Now, you’ll be on the front page tomorrow.”
Do you think he dared her? Sounds like his kind of personality. hee!
Actually, he warned her. She learned of it the power of the MSM’s idiocy by printing a photo of her sticking her tongue out at reportes.
Nice to see that the MSM knows which news is news.
Yeah, you’re right about that. Like the way they went after Clinton. Very important, that blowjob.
Actually, if you look around and do your research. You’ll find the MSM covered less about Clinton’s polishing job than compared to what the MSM covered about President Bush. Even when Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with “that woman.”
You mean the whole Monicagate issue was my imagination? They even gave her a television program. McConnell, you must think people are really stupid - I didn’t even hear about the Bush tongue issue till you brought it up. The fact is the media had a circus for quite a while over one single issue - oral sex in the Oval Office. Bush, yes, has been bashed repeatedly - but not for one single issue, yes? For many, many issues, from his lies about the war to his secret surveillance to his mishandling of the Middle East - actual crimes, omissions, and idiocies.
But again, nice try.
Honestly. “Look around and do my research?” I lived through it. Didn’t you? It was Monica 24/7 - and they didn’t fair-and-balance it up.
It died rather quickly. That’s the their difference. Oh, yes, he’s been bashed repeatedly over a single issue. Any issue, really by Liberals. Already you’ve shown that by using one of the myths about what Bush did.
Living through it and actually seeing the difference are two different things here. The difference was that dinosaurs of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN of the 1990s thought they had control of their contents and how and what news to broadcast to the public to the point of actually disinforming people. You see, it was the internet that made the difference between the 1990s and 2000s. That’s the difference between Clinton and Bush. Bush clearly was bashed endlessly, many more times than Clinton when it came to MSM and the internet. And those outside of the MSM’s influence were able to confront them with their intended misrepresentation and disinformation of their own news to fit their political agenda and leanings. Favoritism. One good example was when Little Green Footballs blew the lid off of CBS embarassingly but obviously fake “Bush Memo” and Dan Rather defended his mistake with a whopper “fake but accurate” response. The MSM, especially CBS, were exposed for their nakedness on their biased news reporting on the pretext to bash Bush as much as possible.
Yeah, Bush was bashed endlessly more than Clinton did during their presidency.
Many don’t know this but when they say “Nice try” it’s actually a sign of a somewhat defeatism response. Read it somewhere in some psycho babble literature on the internet…much to my surprise.
here’s a timeline of the Lewinsky scandal, at least the official and legal parts of it (the media and entertainment bits? forever.) 9 months in the limelight, and several others sort of in the limelight…. I allow others to judge if this is “long” or “short.”
That’s not even what I’m talking about.
Actually, I find the news Rob posted to be funny for two reasons:
1.) Acceptance of dirty words changed over time.
2.) It’s typical of media people to search for bloopers and for First Lady Laura to deal with it. It’s discipline time.
Lighten up! I admit I stick out my tongue from time to time. I bet everyone did the same.
Join me in laughing!
This is so funny..the way he chew like a cow. Mooooo! How did the captioned appearred on CNN?? I never seen that before. So neat! Im not really a Bush fan, but the whole Hezbollah is getting out of hand. Im glad my ancestor brought me to America.
What president Bush said:
“The best way to stop the violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place. And that’s because Hizballah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon into Israel, and because Hizballah captured two Israeli soldiers. That’s why we have violence. And the best way to stop the violence is for Hizballah to lay down its arms, and to stop attacking. And, therefore, I call upon Syria to exert influence over Hizballah.”
Do you think Syria will comply?
Seriously.
I mean it.
How about….nope?
Figures.
Why should Syria comply? What reasons is Bush giving Syria to comply? This is what diplomacy is: when you find reasons for people to do what you want them to. Bush could strong-arm Syria - some are suggesting military action. I think we should just freeze everyone’s assets like he claimed to have done with bin Ladin.
Have you seen him lately?
Um…Syria wants Israel out. That has always been the case. They don’t hide their secrets about that. Plus along with Iran they have given support to Islamic terrorist groups in Israel and nearby territories by providing them with arms, monies and propoganda support.
Freezing everyone’s asset? Sure. Unless the NYTimes want to expose the U.S. govt’s “Terrorist Finance Tracking Program” again.
But freezing their assets do not stop terrorism. They have the ammunitions already there. Just find a local Muslim idiot, have him strap on a bomb vest and walk to the nearest group of Israelis and Arabs on the market street of Israel.
Also, we tried to do that against the Hamas by freezing their assets. Do you want to know what happened? Many European countries paid only lip service asset-freezing. Did that stop the Hamas from attacking?
No.
*sigh*
So, all of CNN video online now captioned??
Unfortunately, no.
everybody…what does bush do for an encore on the heels of his s-bomb?
he literally springs a massage on the german chancellor, angela merkel. so much for statesmanship, decorum, and dignity.
http://www.bild.t-online.de/BT.....tacke.html
(having a hard time taking mcconnell’s tripe seriously, seen his stuff over at gally-net-L as well–can’t dignify it with a response)
hehehe… it’s not tripe, it’s recycled Michelle Malkin. But he’s pretty smart for all that - and I am pleased to see a Deaf man, you know, actually writing. Credit where credit’s due.
Just stating what Bush said. Michelle Malkin didn’t quite put the words in Bush mouth. Note the quotes.
I don’t consider myself as a “D”eaf man. You can consider me as a person with a hearing loss.
Draconian, I don’t hide behind anonymous names when I speak my mind.
But then why do you post so much on DeafDC and other places and focus so much on issues involving deaf people? It’s kind of weird. I was like that before, but I decided it was illogical.
And I can’t post on DeafDC and offer my opinions on various issues…including deaf issues? Not only do I talk about deaf/Deaf/hh/deafness issues, I do post my opinions in the areas of politics and elsewhere. If you think I post “too” much here…you haven’t seen me elsewhere doing the posting on non-deaf issues.
You complain about my posting or what? That I’m not wanted here? Is that what you’re hinting? *wink* *wink*..?
I write. I opine. I think. I contribute. I help. I support. I disagree. I agree. I grieve. I laugh.
You want me to leave and not post again?
What is exactly your complaint, Joe?
You didn’t answer my question. Why do these things concern you so much if you don’t feel a connection to the Deaf community? It’s kind of passive-aggressive. I have no problem with you being here at all - as I said, I enjoy seeing Deaf people write.
Maybe I’d like to know your story. You wanna share? What’s behind the brains of Mike McConnell? What draws you to all this? Do you want to change the future of the Deaf community? Just comment and create friction like some bloggers do?
My connection is with the deaf/Deaf/hh community and not JUST a connection with the Deaf community. What draws me to this? Because I have an opinion. I’m not here to create friction but to opine. Why did you say that I don’t have a connection with the Deaf community? Just because I have an alternative opinion and set of beliefs means that I cannot possibly be connected to the Deaf community?
My connection is broad rather than specific to all communities.
My story is spelled in my blog. Learn from there.
You are such a prolific poster here and on GallyNet, McConnell, I would assume that your blog is equally littered with entries. Since you are so fond of providing links, mind providing the relevant links to answer Rainmound’s question - whats your story? Help us understand you instead of issuing a challenge aimed at forcing us to wade through tons of posts. Thanks.
I have no idea when you say “what’s your story?” If you want to get the idea, read my blogs. Read my entries in DeafDC. Read my entries in Gallynet-L. Read my entries in Deafreedom.com.
Exactly what story do you want? I cannot possibly read your minds on what you want to hear.
just got home from work…
what was that you were saying early on about having too much time on one’s hands, mcconnell? all you seem to have been doing today is trying to get in the last word with joe.
you have to admit, draconian_devil is catchy. and nice try–but it’s a stale, tired neoconservative troll’s trick to accuse others of hiding behind catchy usernames (or countless “anonymouses”) when it becomes apparent, to themselves and their opponents, that their political arguments (some would call it shilling) don’t hold water. you, comfortably smug in your jingoistic myopia, would blend it seamlessly with people like yourself over on “little green footballs.”
the blogosphere is full of users who choose not to use their real names, and there is no correlation between such a choice and one’s political leanings. this is where the old conservative troll’s trick fails–it relies on the false assumption that “anonymous” (or monikers of anonymity) is synonymous with “liberal.”
if you can’t defend your views with facts instead of spin, I wouldn’t expect you to slink away but enough of the troll’s tricks designed to distract people like myself from keeping our eye on the ball.
I never said or implied you couldn’t speak your mind. truly, I might think you’re full of **** but I’d defend your right to that–I don’t believe in censorship–no more or less than my right not to dignify anyone’s posts which reveal a huge disconnect between political ideology and reality.
No neocon trick but thanks for the accusation. It’s a fact when it comes to hiding behind an anonymous name whether a person is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green party, Hezbollah, etc that people will have a greater tendency to say whatever on their minds with a more sardonic reply. I’ve noticed it before.
I’ve defended my opinions with facts and with links to show my side of the argument. Much of what I say is easily corrobrated through a simple Google search.
sneaky, mcconnell. you say you’ve defended your opinions with facts and links to show your side of the argument? I took a look at the links you posted earlier on this thread…
http://www.masada2000.org: anti-muslim spin pandering to the LCD (lowest common denominator) with provocative images and caricatures of the arab world
iraqthemodel.blogspot: neoconservative spin passing opinion off as fact with links to more like-minded neoconservative water-carriers and shills
and the NY sun is notoriously conservative, owned by conservative interests who donate to neoconservative causes every election year. that publication cannot be counted on to be objective.
those 3 examples hardly constitute the “facts” you bring to the table, but I wholeheartedly agree with you that you have provided the links to support (rather, cheerlead) your misguided views.
disingenuousness does not win arguments even though it may reinforce your perception of the world in spite of reality, but thank you for playing.
Er..the Iraq the Model is by and only by Iraqis. They don’t identify themselves as “neocons.” In the Iraq the Model link, the bloggers also offered comments by those against Israel. This blog is a surprisingly honest and refreshing views from Iraqi brothers who see a different world as a Muslim. They took upon their first taste at freedom by freely expressing themselves in world when such expression was expressily forbidden. Have you at all read Iraq the Model (oh, say starting a few years back) and any of their links to their brethens who share the same giddy freedom on finally sharing to the world their opinions and views concerning politics, terrorism, terrorists, clerics, etc…etc…?
Please disprove what I’ve said and show that the links I’ve provided do not contain factual elements.
It’s not about winning per se. It’s about getting the facts straight. Note the difference….please. Nothing sneaky about that.
McConnell:
Have you wondered why your posts get so many comments? I’m raising this question to you, not to malign you or put you down in any way. You are a member of this community, and your opinions certainly add to the mix of diverse perspectives on this blog, and I see no reason why you cannot continue to contribute your perspective. *smile*
That said, it’s become clearer and clearer that your comments draw ire, scrutiny, questioning, disagreement, and outright challenges. Do you have any idea why that is? Before you respond, please listen.
1. Your tone is offensive. It implies that you think your perspective is the only one. You have this way of correcting people that smacks of “I know better than you do. You’re wrong, and I’m right.” This is evident in your comments as well. You are probably going to ask, “Where did I say that? I did not say that! Show me a post where I said that!” No, you didn’t say it, but it is implied many, many times throughout this site.
2. Your apparent need for oneupmanship is shown in how your comments are always the last ones in a thread. Not getting the last word in does not seem to be an option for you. Draconian_Devil has already remarked on this.
3. Your responses to queries or posts do not show any sign of give-and-take dialogue; rather, they have the air of someone getting up on his soapbox and blaring his worldview. The instances where you ask people questions are in the vein of “prove it.”
4. Near-constant correcting of everyone else - it smacks of being persnickety and anal.
5. Your need to respond to every single thing - I bet if the DeafDC.com people did a bar graph on how many times people respond to posts here, your bar would go through the roof, compared to even Respondent #2.
I raise these not to provoke you nor to make you feel unwelcome. I do it simply to help you understand what is irritating so many people about your comments. Maybe this will help you modify your tone and approach, while still participating on this forum and on others. Maybe not.
I’ve gotten the feeling from your posts that you go on the defensive all the time and you do not listen. This may very well be what will happen, but it was worth a try. I hate the idea of you wearing out your welcome. (Note: I am in NO way affiliated with DeafDC.com, except as a reader/commentator.)
Edit function isn’t happening… wanted to add an apology to Rob for straying so far off topic.
No worries. Have been enjoying everyone’s contributions - and happy that everyone’s remained civilized!
Moi,
Let’s say that whatever I write, raises people consciousness and offer a different perspective. I’ve all along state these are my opinions/arguments supported with facts with a dose of reality.
I have been doing commenting and postings for over two decades and I realize that people who have a different view as mine sees my replies as an attack because what I say sometimes threatens their own perceived notions. However, I do not, ever, make personal remarks to those who do not agree with me (not saying that you are doing this to me or others…just saying). I have never complained to anyone for having a contrarian viewpoint. I am forthright as well as opinionated. And that doesn’t say I am always right.
I debate. When you debate, jave ready with facts on hand to support your arguments. You may think it’s all about on upmanship. You couldn’t be more wrong simply because I am usually in the minority here when it comes to alternative opinions and support.
As an advice to you, and this is not an attack on you, is you need to learn not to take my comments personally when I am presenting an argument. No matter how often I post. It is altogether a different story to take things personally if the you are personally attacked and belittled with name callings and snide remarks. That would be uncalled for. I attack the arguments, not the person. If you feel that my counter arguments are offensive, or I post too many times, I cannot help you there. I have an opinion. I presents them. Many times, along with facts that supports my arguments and provide a correction for those who may have thought otherwise. I am a well researched person. I understand when it comes to perception issues and it’d be a mistake on your part to think that I am not aware of these things.
I must chime in to say that while others may find McConnell to be a piece of work (smile), I find his opinions to be thought-provoking.
In fact, I think it’s safe to say that this debate has been far more effective than say, a book or magazine article - in enabling me a better understanding of the Middle East conflict.
Thank you all for continuing to contribute.
I concur, on all fronts. McConnell can be a nuisance (or insert other colorful word here) at times, but I just realized that I’d miss him if he no longer commented here, and spent all his time flipping friggin tires.
joseph rainmound:
damning with faint praise. GRIN
Just read all the responses here… history aside, I’ll stick with general applicability, or basic morality.
Although Jews were recognized by the UN as a people with a rightful claim to the land that is today Israel, I’m with the neighbors on this. Religion is no basis for dibs on land.
To imagine that the UN could one day take a look at my home and go, “Let’s draw a line here and there… a smidge more to the left, ta-dah, we’ve created a new state. Kindly move 15 miles down, a camp has been set up for you” is just crazy. It’d take more than 60 years for me to get over it.
What is even crazier is that under Israeli law, I am entitled to citizenship. My mother and grandmother are both Jewish, and that qualifies me. Divine claim aside, how do you explain that to those who have been in the area for generations but were forced into ghettoes? “You chose the wrong god, bummer.”
And what I don’t understand is Israel’s determination. It isn’t Israel so much once we acknowledge that 1 in 5 citizens are from America. The Israel of today is vastly different from the Jewish state that was formed in 1948, in the wake of the Holocaust and worldwide sympathy. You don’t make reparations by apologizing for Germany but taking land from Arabs. Ever since 1948 the neighbors have “disagreed”… nonstop, with no end in sight. What government wants to persevere under these conditions, honestly?
I’m going to play a game called “Let’s Throw Up an Idealistic Solution.” Feel free to join in…
1) Make the land a UN safe zone and allow visitors but no residents except for the clergy (similar to the church state of the Vatican).
2) Declare the entire Holy Land region a free zone, to be jointly maintained with contributions from Jews, Christians, and Muslims (something akin to how Maryland ceded territory that is D.C. today) and governed by an interfaith tribunal.
(If anything, either would be cheaper in the long run than waging war. This would mean dissolving Israel but nevertheless promising all Jews access to the land, as with Christians & Muslims.)
3) ???
I like your sensibility…
Well said, Glenn. Glad you’re here. And I’ve no idea what #3 could be but you’re on a roll.
Glenn, your #1 and #2 suggestions seem idealistic and probably possible. But what about the residents? How would they agree to one kind of government when they have problems grasping the concept of the separation between government and religion?
Good question. Maybe if someone pointed out that the likely alternative is continual war?
Yep, Glenn, I was afraid of that!
Your analysis regarding citzenship in Israel. From Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics annual report on the make-up of the State of Israel’s population (see http://www.ynetnews.com/articl.....83,00.html):
the statistics below refers to those with Israeli citzenships.
* By the end of 2004, Israel’s population reached 6,869,500, including 5,237,600 Jews (76.2 percent), 1,340,200 Israeli Arabs (19.5 percent) and 291,700 “others” (4.2 percent).
* In 2004, the Jewish community constituted 76.2 percent of Israel’s total population in comparison to 77.8 percent in 2000. However, the Muslim population reached 16.1 percent in 2004, in comparison to 15.2 percent in 2000.
As for Israel’s “crazy” law on citizenship please do not overlook the fact that other Arab countries are doing the exact same thing. If you’re not a Muslim, you cannot apply for a citzenship for that country. Most famous would be Saudia Arabia.
“The Saudi government bars all non Muslims including Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists from practicing their faith publicly in Saudi Arabia. It also bars them from celebrating all national and cultural holidays such as Independence Day, Christmas and New Year’s Day.”
http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2.....s-say.html
As for Israel to take UN’s “safe zone” concept by not allowing residents, you are effectively trying to force Israel’s hand that would affect 8.5 million citzens of Israel to give up their identiy to their land. This means Israel’s citizens can no longer be identified as a citizen of that country, it’s unique history and culture…..including those 1.3 million Israeli-Arabs.
These figures look right, human. During my post earlier into the day, I went to wikipedia and there was a population count for May 2006… but the entire site is community-edited, so…
It may be that Saudi Arabia restricts citizenship to Muslims. That is a fact. Fine. But, doesn’t have to be precedential. My logic is a bit different… example: the rights other Arab countries confer to women don’t have to be also observed in Israel.
I understand that you are citing the authority of the UN as the basis of Israel’s legitimacy. That is a fact; the UN created Israel. What I have is just a suspicion but… the U.S. is effectively sponsoring Israel, giving it its only legs (wiki says we lend $ to them and account for half of their debt; and despite their weaponry prowess–the sleek, sexy UZI–we are their biggest military backer… but again, source is wiki…) and it just could be because of its strategic position. It’s our only foothold in the Middle East. As long as we need them, Israel will stand; once we don’t, *blink*, they’ll be overrun. In the meanwhile, during our persistence, war will go on.
Biblical claims notwithstanding (which I doubt called for exclusive ownership by Jews–but I’ve been wrong a million times), I’m in idealist mode here and am wondering if a compromise (to mean sharing the land) would be the only humane solution.
Also, your last paragraph makes a noteworthy point. Regretfully, I think a hard line is the only palatable option; many were displaced and are being denied the land, but hypothetically, tomorrow I could be a citizen of Israel. Since it’s holy land and not your usual parcel of land, it just might have to be either all or nothing.
Perhaps we should see all land as holy.
most of all, Hobbs Computer Lab.
I read all comments with great interest. I do not have many inputs because I know very little about it. McConnell, I know you enjoy studying International politics. What your take on number 1 and 2 or can you create a new 3? I am so curious.
Joesph, yes, all of us ought to cherish every inch of our earth planet.
Anyway, come to think of it, it MUST BE VERY HARD for the new government of Lebanon NOT to respond to Israel’s attack on their southern border! I am amazed at their steel of willpower to hold back and allow Israel attacking the southern border at will. I think all other Arab nations are showing their mighty self-discpline by not jumping in to help Lebanon . . . Incredible! They have my deepest respect. Lately, I’m sorry but I’m thinking less and less of recently-elected Israel Prime Minister as well as President Bush.
Critics of Israel’s defensive war against Islamic terrorists are busily wringing their hands over the destruction that has been wreaked on Lebanon, which is portrayed as innocent. They invoke these tragedies while calling on Israel to cease its fire and leave the Hezbollah aggressors intact. Since Israel had no role in starting this war, this is like blaming the Allies for the damage inflicted on Germany in World War II – and doing so in the midst of the war. Critics who make such charges and demands in the midst of a war are aiding and abetting the aggressors.
But the very idea that Lebanon is an innocent bystander in the war against Israel won’t wash. Lebanon is host to the terrorist aggressor which has sworn to eliminate Israel and its Jews from the face of the earth. This is the explicit creed of both Hezbollah and its sponsor Iran. And not just in their charter or in statements made months or years ago. Iran’s little dictator reiterated the threat even yesterday in the midst of Islam’s aggressive war against the Jews: “Israel has pushed the button of its own destruction. The Zionists made their worst decision and triggered their extinction by attacking Lebanon.” Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, occupying two cabinet positions and seats in its parliament. The Lebanese government agreed to enforce UN Resolution 1559 which calls on it to disarm all militias on its territory, namely Hezbollah. If the Lebanese Government had performed this obligation, there would be no war, and there would be no Lebanese civilian casualties.
Instead the Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to build its headquarters and underground bunkers in the populated neighborhoods of Beirut. It allowed Hezbollah to import 13,000 missiles to be fired into Israel’s cities and towns. The 75,000-man Lebanese army has not sealed off the Syrian border and, according to reports, has allowed Syria to re-supply Hezbollah in the midst of its aggression. The Lebanese government has allowed Hezbollah to build underground fortresses on its southern border in position to attack. It has allowed Hezbollah to launch rockets into the towns of northern Israel to terrorize and kill innocent civilians.
Israel has done nothing to provoke this attack from Lebananese territory. But in the midst of Hezbollah’s aggression against Israel, Lebanon’s prime minister has joined the attackers, blaming Israel for Lebanon’s misery instead of its source.
It will be objected that Lebanon is helpless, that its democracy was destroyed and its territory conquered by the PLO, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. It will be said that the Lebanese cannot resist the superior force of Hezbollah’s “state within a state.” But this is an argument in bad faith. No one is helpless. When France was occupied by Germany during World War II, DeGaulle organized the “free French” into a fighting force. The so-called “Cedar Revolution” showed that there are ways of manifesting opposition and resistance to the occupiers. Even though it failed, it showed that resistance is possible. If there is resistance to Islamic terror in Lebanon today, it is as invisible as moderate Islam. Put bluntly, while the Lebanese have demonstrated their resistance to the Syrian occupier in the very recent past, there has been no evidence of it when the aggressor is an Islamic force bent on obliterating the Jews.
The Lebanese army has not lifted a finger to obstruct Hezbollah’s aggression, but the Lebanese prime minister has been out front in attacking Israel. Who, watching the Lebanese interviewed by reporters during the war – including the Lebanese Americans evacuated to safety – can doubt that their hatred is for Jews and not for the Islamic killers of both the Jews and the Lebanese.
These attitudes do not make the Lebanese deserving of the war that Hezbollah and Iran have inflicted on them; but it does not make them innocent either. Hezbollah’s Shi’ite fanatics are Lebanese. Over the last twenty years Hezbollah has become an integral part of Lebanese society and Lebanon’s government. All the while Hezbollah has sworn to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. If war has come to Lebanon, no one can pretend that they didn’t see it coming.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar.....p?ID=23485
I have been asking everybody, when did Israel ever screamed “Death to all Muslims!” when Hezbollah has done countless times advocating that Israel and all Jewish people be wiped off the planet?
A little common sense, people.