So It’s A Vast…Left-Wing Conspiracy, Then?

Look – this fall is likely to be another rough one for the GOP.  It’s possible we can retain the White House if we all pull together.  But Congress is looking grim; indeed, if the Dems get less than 80 seats in the Senate and 330 in the House, it should be considered a crushing defeat.

But if nothing else, we’ll get a few years of watching the Tics eat their own:

Former President Bill Clinton said that Democrats were more likely to lose in November if his wife Hillary Clinton is not the party’s presidential nominee, and suggested some people were trying to “cover this up” and “push and pressure and bully” superdelegates to make up their minds prematurely.

“I can’t believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out,” he said at a South Dakota campaign stop Sunday, in remarks first reported by ABC News. “’Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'”

Well, to be fair, the media has more important things to cover up.  To be fairer – huh?

The former president added that his wife had not been given the respect she deserved as a legitimate presidential candidate.

Sixteen years of fawning, and this is all the thanks the press gets from Slick Willy?

29 thoughts on “So It’s A Vast…Left-Wing Conspiracy, Then?

  1. Let’s talk about conspiracies then – why don’t you offer to bring Scott McClellan on Narn?

  2. Then again, you probably approved of Bush steering the country into war – deceiving the American people, pretending to try to avoid it while actively seeking it, telling the American people that war was a last resort, when, just as the DEMS and others (me) talked about, it was so very clearly the FIRST choice. I mean, it’s this kind of deception you think is perfectly ok, downplay facts you don’t like – fool people – create false and misleading impressions, that’s GOOD policy, truly.

  3. Thought you wingnuts would be pretty stuffed already after chewing on McCain, not to mention every Republican to the left of Darth Vader.

  4. perhaps you’re being tongue-in-cheek

    (Sigh).

    why don’t you offer to bring Scott McClellan on Narn?

    Done!

    you probably approved of Bush steering the country into war – deceiving the American people

    No, I approved of what the President did – which, looney dissociative conspiracy theories aside, was nothing like what you describe.

  5. So, peev, how is the book sourced? how much is opinion rather than fact? Have you read it yet? Are you making even the slightest effort to confront & control your biases?

  6. Mitch – looney theories?? Ok, I guess McClellan is a loon, read the article before you respond next time. What I described was what McClellan (oh, and a HOST of others including Douglas Feith) said.

    And Terry, I guess the source is McClellan – same comment to you, read the article – it has direct excerpts from McClellan – but looney dissaciative conspiracy theories aside (like the one where all of these people who worked for the President are just disgruntled ex-employees – you know, that one, the one that ISN’T sourced) – the fact is, this walks, looks, smells, and sounds like a duck. It doesn’t take any theory, the people are directly alleging it.

  7. Mitch, you need to get out more, really. From Paul O’Neill, to Richard Clarke, to Ari Fliescher, to Douglas Feith, to David Kay, to Scotty McClellan, the stories of excess are overwhelming, and given your penchant for making claims of ‘deep pocketed lefties’ backing MnMon, based on the comments of one unnamed source, and a slight confirmation – meaning oblique – I’d say if anyone is guilty of non-sourced, conspiracy theory jingo-ism, he’s wearing your shoes, sitting in front of your computer at work.

  8. Hey Terry, I attempt to control my bias all the time, unlike the author of this blog.

  9. Peev, there is nothing — nothing — in the snippets released so far that give any credence to McLellen’s words other than his own statements and recollections. You are willing to accept as gospel anything that McLellen writes as long as it fits your biases. You don’t even know how to differentiate between a fact and an opinion. I don’t believe you even know that there is a difference.

  10. I attempt to control my bias all the time

    That merely proves you haven’t the faintest clue how bias works.

    And I say this with 20 years of hindsight; you are as awash in your biases as anyone I’ve ever met. And that’s not a bad thing; you certainly have a point of view, and you state and defend it fairly effectively (verbally, anyway; not so much in writing).

    So there’s nothing wrong with “bias” expressed an an intelligently-arrived at point of view. But please don’t pretend you don’t have them, or that you make even the faintest pretense of controlling them. Your output here disproves it.

  11. Speaking of the press..

    “I think it’s a very legitimate allegation,” said CBS News’ Katie Couric. “I think it’s one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism.

    “And I think there was a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of it,” Couric added. “I think it was extremely subtle but very, very effective.”

    Yep, sure am glad that vast left-wing media conspiracy reported so deeply on Bush and the run up to the war.

    Badda – save all you like, it will be true tomorrow, and the day after, etc.. and so on and so on, and NOT true about Mitch (or seemingly you).

  12. So there’s nothing wrong with “bias” expressed an an intelligently-arrived at point of view. But please don’t pretend you don’t have them, or that you make even the faintest pretense of controlling them. Your output here disproves it.

    As you are wont to say – Bullshit.

    First off, Mitch, basically your entire cabal, including you, make my bias look like mere second-thought, second, I work to offset it by actually reading and listening. But this aint about me, as you ALWAYS try to make it, it’s about you. Not working against your flaws is a sin/flaw – whatever you prefer to name it – and bias is a flaw. I work against mine, you embrace yours.

    Btw Terry, you’re right Scott McClellan, the man who was Bush’s press secretary for 2 years, he didn’t site his source (namely himself), I’m sure his conversations with people aren’t valid, his understanding of the way they were playing the game isn’t valid, he’s just another disgruntled employee.

  13. Terry,

    FACT – Karl Rove told Scott McClellan he wasn’t involved in the Plame coverup

    FACT – Rove admitted under oath he was

    FACT – Scooter Libby told Scott Mclellan he wasn’t involved in the Plame cover up

    FACT – he lied to a grand jury, and then in court about it, and attempted to later say, once Rove and Cheney refuted his testimony, that he simply didn’t remember.

    FACT – Libby was convicted of perjury.

    FACT – GWB commutted Libby’s sentence.

    FACT – GWB said no one involved in such a coverup would work in his adminsitration.

    FACT – To date, no one has been fired.

    FACT – Cheney lied to Scott McClellan about being involved in the Wilson coverup

    FACT – Cheney admitted under oath he WAS involved

    FACT – Wilson was in fact a covert operative – and while Rove publicly denied involvement, it was HE who was identified as being the person responsible for starting the process of disclosing her identity, which, unless GWB approved it (and seemingly he did) is a felony, but Libby’s tight-lipped, and now commuted crime, will mean we don’t get to ever really find out.

    Now, if you can’t put it together to see a pattern of deception to which McClellan is referring, sorry bud, but that’s on you. And chosing to discount McClellan, after Clarke, Powell, O’Niell, Fliescher, Kay, well, I think it’s pretty clear who has the bias.

  14. And I say this with 20 years of hindsight; you are as awash in your biases as anyone I’ve ever met.

    BTW Mitch, is that just another ribbing, or are you again, a hypocrite, chosing to personalize things whenever it suits you, take personal shots whenever it suits you?

    As for 20 years, Mitch, you barely know me, our last significant interaction was more than 15 years ago- you certainly don’t have the first damned clue about my biases, THAT much is clear, but you sure as hell will pretend to and pontificate about it, that much is even MORE clear.

  15. Peev, who leaked Plame’s identity to the press?
    I’ll give you a hint: in your long list of FACTs you never mentioned it.

  16. I am left wondering:

    “What the hell would peevish have wrote if he did not ‘work against’ his bias?”

    My opinion is that he is truly unaware of his biases, and his time would be better spent “working against” logic and spelling flaws.

  17. Who leaked it to the press..

    Robert Novak at first wouldn’t say, but there were two sources, but if memory serves one was Dick Armitage, the other I’m sorry, but it escapes me at the moment. Unlike so many of you, I am not going to leap to the internet to pretend I knew off the top of my head.

    What I was and am referring to, is that there was a report on which Plame’s name appeared, which had (S) behind it, which is rather well understood to mean her identity is secret. Rove is identified as being one of the people who saw that report, but still pushed her name forward.

  18. But, ya’ know what Terry, Mitch, Troy – bluntly, this isn’t about ME. It’s about the President’s Press Secretary alleging that the President operated in ‘campaign’ mode all the time, being incurious about fact, being unwilling to change policy (oh, like until he lost the 2006 election) AND the fact that rather than tryiing to dispute that, you feel compelled to (tada, same old story) attack the messenger, whether it’s me, or McClellan.

    Wake up and smell the coffee boys.

  19. Peev:
    “…attack the messenger, whether it’s me, or McClellan.”

    Uh, Peev… don’t you always attack the messenger?

  20. Here’s a shocker for you:

    The White House says (tada!):

    Press Secretary Says Predecessor Scott McClellan Is “Disgruntled,”

    Who’da thunk it?!

    Everyone is disgruntled, Powell, O’Neill, Clarke, McClellan, they are all a bunch of liars – just making shit up because they’re pissed off. Yep.. I like how you guys like to trust the government – but again, there are no facts behind any of this, so why not.

  21. So, peev, is it your belief that McLellan is _not_ disgruntled?
    What is your point?

  22. That’s “McClellan,” Terry, like the Civil War general.

    And a lot of people are disgruntled with the Shrub administration these days, in case you haven’t noticed. In fact, you hard-core, dead-ender wingnuts seem to be the only ones who remain gruntled. It’s what will return the Republicans to a minority, regional party.

  23. It’s what will return the Republicans to a minority, regional party.

    What, again?

    Not to worry, Clown. Obama is going to be, at inauguration, the worst president of my lifetime. Our exile won’t last long.

  24. From News Busters, still to be confirmed: McClellan’s publisher was… Soros.

  25. LGF has the etymology up – it is indeed a hard-left Soros outfit.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.