Wow, this one’s like a bizarro-world Media Matters…

Newsbusters,’ it’s called.

I think we have a fresh can of Sadly, No! over there in the supply closet. Let me go check.

Jack Cafferty Deliberately Misquotes and Attacks Cheney
Posted by Ian Schwartz on November 22, 2005 – 16:58.

From the 4pm hour of the Nov. 21 The Situation Room:


JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Why, thank you, Wolf. It’s getting ugly out there. According to Vice President Cheney, if you question, if you dare question the use of pre-war intelligence, according to that speech this morning, you are dishonest and reprehensible.

Actually, Cheney said the complete opposite:

My remarks today concern national security, in particular the war on terror and the Iraq front in that war. Several days ago, I commented briefly on some recent statements that have been made by some members of Congress about Iraq. Within hours of my speech, a report went out on the wires under the headline, “Cheney says war critics ‘dishonest,’ ‘reprehensible.'”

One thing I’ve learned in the last five years is that when you’re Vice President, you’re lucky if your speeches get any attention at all. But I do have a quarrel with that headline, and it’s important to make this point at the outset. I do not believe it is wrong to criticize the war on terror or any aspect thereof. Disagreement, argument, and debate are the essence of democracy, and none of us should want it any other way.

So okay, Cheney never said such a thing, and Cafferty (and ‘the media’) just made it up.

Oh, here it is. [pops can] Sadly, No!

Cafferty only mixed up the dates: It was in Cheney’s speech on Wednesday, November 16th, 2005, and not in his speech on Monday, November 21st, 2005, that Cheney called critiques of the Administration’s WMD story “dishonest and reprehensible,” and called Democrats “opportunists” who were peddling “cynical and pernicious falsehoods.” Then a few days later, Cheney flip-flopped and acted as though he’d been misquoted. Of course, there are transcripts kicking around for media watchdogs to review, if they care to.

It looks like Newsbusters just kinda pretty much blanked out about something that happened only a few days ago — as Republicans so easily do. It’s all about the eternal-now for those folks: You wonder how they can show up for work after a long weekend without forgetting they have a job. It must be weird always being confronted by strangers during the holidays who claim that they’re siblings or parents. Why don’t they forget to put on their pants in the morning — and angrily deny that pants exist, as they stand there with their butts hanging out? It’s a puzzlement.

So it isn’t exactly Media Matters, but they sure seem to be trying against impossible odds. And may we just add:

authintic car horn.JPG


Comments: 24


That site’s fantastic. Have you seen their cartoon? It’s yet more evidence for GY’s theory of cartoons – wingnuts just don’t understand how to make them funny. Read this: and tell me how that’s supposed to be funny. Even if you’re a winger.

Second, skimming through the stories on the front page, these words jumped out at me “Comments are a wonderful thing and truly one of the best features of blogging”. Funny they should say that, because the post you dissect has comments disabled. You’d almost think they didn’t want people pointing out how fucking stupid they are.


Technically, Cheney did not call his opponents “dishonest and reprehensible.” Those words applied to the claims that the Administragedy had misled the American people into war. No, his opponents are merely “irresponsible” “opportunists” disseminating “cynical and pernicious falsehoods,” but he did not call them “dishonest and reprehensible.”

So McCafferty is clearly a stooge of the left wing. Just like all the other media.


Granted, yeah.

But then, think of how hard it must be to be a wingnut these days: You have to pare that parsnip down to paper-thin slices like, “He didn’t say that THEY were dishonest or reprehensible, just that they disseminated cynical and pernicious falsehoods!”

Whereas for us, it’s a gigantic carnival with free food and dancing, every damn day….


Sadly, No: “What is not legitimate ? and what I will again say is dishonest and reprehensible ? is the suggestion by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of his administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence.”

Cafferty said Cheney used “dishonest and reprehensible” to describe people who “dare question the use of pre-war intelligence”. Which sounds pretty damn accurate to me.


Oh, forget all that parsnip-paring. Have a corn dog; ride the tilt-a-whirl!


Sweet Jesus, Ginger, you ain’t kidding. That whole strip doesn’t have an iota of funny in it.

And you know that the righties all say it’s just because we don’t agree with the sentiment, but replace Mapes and Burkett with Miller nad Libby and it’s still not remotely funny!


BTW and slightly OT: Does anyone doubt that Cheney is the real president?


Well, they’ve already matched MM for asinine and partisan nitpicking, but unlike MediaMatters, they seem to be incapable of doing their own fact checking or actually pointing out worthwhile material in their little crusade.
Yet… I find myself unsurprised at the Repubs inability to do so.


Voice of Ukko: Did somebody say corndogs? My sweet Marie.


Poor little Potto Planto.


Does anyone doubt that Cheney is the real president?
Actually it seems to be that Cheney USED to be the real president, word on the hill is that they’re at odds now, barely speaking to each other. Given Bush’s delusions of potency he probably decided to take a turn at the reigns.
This friends, is my theory of why the preznit seems so incompetent now, he doesen’t realize how PR works, at least cheney knew Bush’s limits, like coherent thought and participation in anything not staged to the nth degree. I mean look at him now, it’s pathetic, he can’t even go to China and open a door to escape the press without everything turning to shit.


War, War, Everywhere

Theatrics were the norm last week before Congress headed home for its Thanksgiving break. In the Senate, Democrats offered a resolution that demanded a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq.

Even though Republicans defeated Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid?s (D-Nev.) cut- and-run resolution by a vote of 58 to 40, Reid managed to give Al-Jazeera–and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi–their headlines and talking points all in one shot. Reid proclaimed that the Senate?s action was ?a vote of no confidence,? and defiantly stated that ?staying the course will not do.? (

Senate Republicans pushed back by passing their own resolution, 79 to 19, which essentially requires the White House to report to the entire Senate every 90 days, ?detailing U.S. policy and military operations? in Iraq.

Mind you, these are the same Senate Democrats who supposedly had an informed opinion on Iraq and its WMD?s during the Clinton administration. It is these same Senate Democrats who voted for war in 2002 on the basis of intelligence and information that they actually saw and decided on.

Now, they want real or imagined oversight of a war that they:

-Virtually demanded in the late 1990s, fully backing President Clinton?s stated goal of ?regime change.?

-Supported the decision–and leadership–of President Bush in 2002, even going so far as to demand a debate and vote in regards to an Iraqi war resolution in order to appear in line with the Republicans, not to mention the country. But then?

-Cried foul over being supposedly ?misled? and ?lied to? when WMD?s did not materialize, all the while glossing over their own factual statements regarding Saddam Hussein and those ever-elusive WMD?s.

Two things come to mind here. The first is that these political chamber games that Democrats insist on playing can do nothing but, at best, hurt the moral of our troops and at worst, cost them their lives.

One hopes our military men and women might see the distinction between a party that supports their Herculean efforts, and that of the ?other? party that continues to behave as if it is 1969 all over again.

The second item, now that I mention politics, is all the political flatulence that seems to emanate from the well of the Senate over Iraq, specifically from the likes of Senators Kennedy, Reid, Durbin, and everyone?s favorite anti-war stinker, John Kerry.

Well, the air was just as rank over in the House of Representatives, where Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa), usually a stand-up guy in regard to the military, let fly some of the most dishonorable and nonsensical comments from an otherwise very honorable and sensible man.

In his comments, Murtha said: ?The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.? (

Is this a case of liberal man bites military? Hardly. Murtha is a 37-year Marine Corps veteran, awarded a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. But it may be a case of normally hawkish Murtha reverting to party politics and/or fund-raising gimmickry.

We have seen this before, where normally sensible members of the left side of the aisle become, well, more erratic like their vociferously liberal colleagues. California Congresswoman Jane Harman, who is also usually well-grounded in military matters, had stated the day after London experienced its own version of 9/11 this: ?But the notion that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them in our cities is clearly false.?(

Again, these types of wild-eyed charges are uncharacteristic, untrue, and unnecessary. But normally well-respected and looked-to members of Congress seem to gravitate, after all, into today?s new and senseless Democratic Party; nothing is out of bounds, and all is fair game, even at the expense of the men and women in combat.

For me, the real crime must be the country?s willingness to put up with such political demagoguery and drive-bys, cloaked within the well-worn comfort of ?Free Speech.?

Such rubbish. If Democrats really had any backbone at all, they would have mustered up more than the shamefully paltry three votes they got in support of a GOP yet Democrat-inspired resolution that simply stated:

?It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.? (H.Res.571)

John Murtha and Jane Harman, of course, voted ?No,? which only proves the point that insipid rhetorical yammering beats out principle nearly every time. For confirmation, look at the old media, who now make it their business to report not the news, but what they feel passes for it, politically. (

In 1987, Bill Buckley wrote of Senator Ted Kennedy?s charges against then Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as being ?withered in distortion and malice.? Of course, Buckley was talking about ?The? Ted Kennedy, but he was also commenting on the general state of politics within the confines of civilized discourse.

Alas, Buckley found it lacking then, and so it is today. From the Michael Moores and the test-tube kids down at Air America, I expect the distortion and malice. But the words that tumble out of the elected left these past few years can only hurt the country as a whole, and specifically our armed forces that fight and die for their ?Free Speech? right to say such un-American filth.

For Democrats, it is not only war in Iraq, but war, war, everywhere; political or otherwise.


Goddamit, can you people stop coming here and pasting a whole fucking website into the comment thread?

(Hmmm i guess i was wrong, torture DOES work)


Can we have a special “Ah-oogah!” just for M. Fiore?


By all means, Tigrismus, Ah-oog him!


Who, me? Isn’t there a serious examination-based licensing process or something? And hefty fines and possible imprisonment for Ah-oogah-ing without a license? No, I’d better leave it in the experienced hands of the fine professionals in charge of this site.


Ginger, that “comic” strip? Typical Conservative Humor, I’m afraid.


I’ll offer up a “whooop-whoooop-whoop” with a fluttering hand gesture for Fiore.

It you think it will help any.


Oh man, I can’t stop trolling them! I posted one argument to a transparently weak poll about the media being left-leaning and from then on they keep giving me ammunition. One person HONESTLY responded to me with:

No we are saying that the notion of being an intelectual is really dumb and stupid.


You’re right!
These comment threads are gold, GOLD!


We have seen this before, where normally sensible members of the left side of the aisle become, well, more erratic […] California Congresswoman Jane Harman, who is also usually well-grounded in military matters, had stated […] this: ?But the notion that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them in our cities is clearly false.?

You know, I sort of expected this statement to be followed by some kind of explanation as to HOW that statement was “erratic”. Sadly, no.

Whether or not the “fight them there instead of here” was false, it certainly was stupid. Like an epiphany of stupid.


Or a shitifiny of stupid.


“Newsbusters, it’s called.”

Wow, the innocence of the past.


(comments are closed)