Dan Riehl Has Finally Gone Frickin’ Bananas
Here’s Dan, tanned and rested from his short, petulant retirement awhile back, and hungry for truth as ever.
Actually, he seems to be falling apart in some sort of Zima-fueled paroxysm of desperate unreason. We’ve never seen him quite this ah-oogah before.
The New York Times And A “Jim Webb” Of Lies
Today on Meet the Depressed with Tim Russert Senator Jim Webb accused Senator Lindsey Graham of “putting political words in the Soldier’s mouths.” Actually, it seems Senator Webb did much worse than that today. He put words in their mouths and the mouths of their families and it also appears he got it wrong both times.
Webb was citing this below from a current NY Times story. (full NYT version here) A few interesting things happen when you try to confirm this specific item from a poll taken in May, which we only seem to be hearing about now for some odd reason.
Among military members and their immediate families who responded to a national New York Times/CBS News poll in May, two-thirds said things were going badly, compared with just over half, about 53 percent, a year ago.
Indeed, interesting things happen when you try to confirm this item.
This is what Webb said: “Go take a look at the New York Times today. Less than half of the military believes that we should have been in Iraq in the first place.””
This is what the Times story says: “Among military members and their immediate families who responded to a national New York Times/CBS News poll in May, two-thirds said things were going badly, compared with just over half, about 53 percent, a year ago. Fewer than half of the families and military members said the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq.”
That sneaky, lying Webb was citing the line just under the one Dan quoted. Can you believe the perfidy of him?
The mystery thickens: Since Webb was lying, the Times must be lying too. But are they merely citing poll numbers that don’t exist, or is the conspiracy. . .deeper?
There is indeed a May NY Times CBS poll,
Conspiracy deeper, then.
but if you look at it, you see why it wasn’t making bigger news in May. It didn’t give the Democrats what they wanted back then.
I.e., if you look at it, you see that it gave them multiple, unambiguous indicators that the majority of America is against the war and hates George Bush and all he stands for, making it abundantly clear that conservative Republicans are only a few steps away from the tar pot and the feather sack.
Therefore, since the liberal media buried these stories by printing them in newspapers, the Democrats must have wanted. . .something else at the time.
So here we are three months later, they’ve striped out results they didn’t like and are attempting to inject the ones they did like into the coming debate on war funding.
See, we don’t know what they’ve ‘striped out.’ It could be anything, because all we can refer to is these multiple NY Times articles all citing figures that make right-wing commentators once again look like a bunch of ass-beings from the planet Flatulon.
Oh wait, according to the raw data of the May NY Times/CBS News poll, 107% of Americans say hooray for George Bush and want him to be king for life. Yes yes, scoff if you like, but would the liberal MSM tell you if it were true!?!?
Plus, there was an extra month between May and July this year (!?), and the coming debate on war funding is completely unlike the one that took place in May, right after the poll data came out.
This is seriously blowing my mind. What’s next, an out-of-context quote in boldface?
While the troops remain in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions.
See, the dishonest Times makes it seem like “while the troops are in Iraq” means funding the troops while they’re in Iraq (as opposed to defunding them and making them crawl around the desert in rags, as people keep hearing the Democrats are proposing) when it actually means that a majority wants to fund the Iraq War forever in perpetuity, as part of the generational ‘long war’ against the Islamoconspiracy endorsed by Dan Riehl and 112% of other Americans. Because look! The stinky Times brackets that true statement with lies such as these:
A large majority of the public — 76 percent, including a majority of Republicans — say that the additional American troops sent to Iraq this year by Mr. Bush have either had no impact or are making things worse there. Twenty percent think the troop increase is improving the situation in Iraq.
A majority of Americans continue to support a timetable for withdrawal. Sixty-three percent say the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008.
Heh indeed. Back to you, Brother Liberty:
CBS had coverage of the poll, again, no mention of military families and, keep in mind, this was long before the so-called Surge actually took full effect just two weeks ago. Other than party affiliation the only sub-group mentioned was African-American. CBS cautioned the MOE for that sub group shot up to an unreliable + or – 7 points. Any guesses as to what the MOE might be for this suddenly discovered, though previously unidentified “military family” sub group alleged to have taken part in this dated poll?
I’m just going to break character for a moment to note that Dan is whining like a golden retriever hit by a car.
Also as regards Senator Webb, while referencing an “only 35% support” for the war number, it at least looks as though he might actually have become confused between the New York Times story and an old and already debunked Military Times survey – debunked as even the MT’s is forced to admit they poll veterans and families not necessarily affiliated with active duty military today.
Because although he cited the Times statistic correctly, in his mind he was thinking of another poll — one which reached the same conclusion, but was already debunked by ;lkjsf09 whoops hand slipped on keyboard, too late to link.
You’d think Webb, an old soldier, would know that. He accused Senator Lindsey Graham of “putting political words in the Soldier’s mouths.” Actually, it seems Senator Webb did worse. He put words in their mouths and the mouths of their families and, as stated, it appears he got it wrong both times. He should apologize to our troops … and stay off TV until he gets his facts straight … and a better wig, if he doesn’t mind my saying so.
Above: Dan Riehl and his gay sweater
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,125 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone May 18-23, 2007. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher. An oversample of African Americans was also conducted for this poll, for a total of 192 interviews among this group. The results were then weighted in proportion to the racial composition of the adult population in the U.S. Census. The margin of error for African Americans is plus or minus 7 percentage points.
See, whatever that is, it probably proves his point in some way.
And strangely, back in May, not one Left wing blog opted to tout the NY Times lede:
“Americans view war in Iraq more negatively now than at any time since invasion,”
The conspiracy is like an octopus with many beaks.
Either liberals don’t even read the NY Times anymore,
Because as we’ve seen, it’s just too liberal.
or they didn’t want people to realize the strong support for continuing to fund the war which, ultimately, led to Bush winning that previous debate.
Truly, that one line in the article negated the rest of it. Lord knows, someone might have taken it out of context, so the entire thing had to be suppressed.
Also, that’s totally the way the veto works.
All they are doing now is striping out what they didn’t like from an old poll and bringing back the rest. If the numbers against the war still hold, we should assume the support for fully funding the troops does as well and Congress should immediately set about giving President Bush the funds he needs to continue the fine effort of our brave and loyal soldiers in the field.
And now we reach our pièce de résistance: According to logic, as long as Americans oppose the war, Congress should continue giving Bush what he wants to continue the war.
Which, according the video of Dan’s that lurks behind the final link, we are winning brilliantly.
I got as far as ripping the video into .AVI format and sourcing a copy of Kenny Nolan’s ‘I Like Dreaming’ to dub onto the soundtrack, but I believe this clip says it more elegantly:
That is the most horrible sweater in the whole horrible history of sweaters.
They’re sucking that “the surge only JUST NOW started” meme dry, aren’t they?
Unless the surge suddenly just showed up all at once, in a massive tidal wave of 20,000 new troops over the weekend, there has been a steady increase of troops in country over the past few months.
Logically, if the surge was going to work at all, one would expect to see a steady decline of violence as the troop numbers increase.
Maybe the surge should have been 20,005 more troops. THEN we’d see democracy flourish!
“and an old and already debunked Military Times survey – debunked as even the MT’s is forced to admit they poll veterans and families not necessarily affiliated with active duty military today.”
Wow. In his world, the only people who’s opinion matters are the people who will agree with him.
I love pro-military people who claim the military lies to undermine the military. It’s so… mobious…
“And strangely, back in May, not one Left wing blog opted to tout the NY Times lede [sic]:
“Americans view war in Iraq more negatively now than at any time since invasion,” ”
Below the fold: “Water: wet, claims scientists”.
How was that supposed to help his point?
“That odor you are experiencing is desperation.”
Q: When does a surge become an escalation?
A: When the supporters of a surge say they need more time for it to work.
Welcome to the escalation!
Vietnam comparisons anyone?
“The Surge” only just now got its copyright applications filed. We still have another 5 – 7 years before “Beta” versions have been tested by neo-Khan developers and “field testers” (troops).
Hopefully in 2015 we should be able to assume the roadmapped release of Surge 1.0RC, but the special and long-planned features such as Democracy, Peace, and Not Needing US Occupation Forces will be released later, probably in Surge SP2, planned for 2020.
It’s always interesting to see the contortions necessary for these people to get some good news out of the present American mood. When Americans were leaning hard right, soon after 9/11, I don’t recall any such twisting of the facts by “the Left.”
It’s obvious Dan’s sweater was making a subtle allusion to this NYT article.
Let’s try that link again.
Jesus Christ. That’s more batshit insane than if the Noonans had a lovechild.
That is one funny dog!
Totally off topic, but please call your Senators if you haven’t already done so and ask them to support Senate Amendment 2022 to restore habeus corpus.
Back on topic, the wingnuts are starting to scare the bejeebers out of me. The more desparate they become, the more shrill they become, the more nervous I get. Remember, it’s always when the victim is getting ready to leave the abuser that the situation is most dangerous. Soon they’ll be issuing fatwahs against anyone involved in the peace movement or even slightly to the left of Arlen Specter, and we’ll start seeing serious domestic terrorism. Hate groups are already on the increase, and we’ve got all those batshit crazy Minutemen prowling the borders. We’ll probably be lucky to get through this summer without major incidents. I’m afraid the summer of ’08 will be really bad.
Now I get to go do some Shepardizing. Whee
I have to ask: who the fuck are these guys writing for these days? Do they honestly think that the whole “well, if you ignore 90% of the data and squinch up you eyes just right it looks like a sailboat” thing is having any effect at all on the public debate?
I know, I know… its all mostly delusion-management meant to keep the Wingnut Welfare gravy flowing but Jesus.
I suppose there is some sort of conspiracy to manipulate public opinion buried in all that jibberish, but I’m too lazy to look for it.
I know many others have wondered at your ability to actualy read this kind of shit, but it really is wonderous.
“While the troops remain in Iraq, the overwhelming majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, though most want to do so with conditions.”
Maybe he meant, “most want to do so with conditioner”–i.e., most Americans are only in favor of financing the war if the troops are provided with suitable hair care products. Because, aren’t we? It’s bad enough to be in Iraq in those horrible circumstances. At least keep them from having a bad hair day.
Otherwise, I read this three times and I’m still not sure what his point is. Is it: By mentioning A, which is true, but not mentioning B, which is true, that means that A is not true? This is the logic of the three year old, who thinks that if he closes his eyes and can’t see you, you can’t see him.
Is that it?
“This is the logic of the three year old, who thinks that if he closes his eyes and can’t see you, you can’t see him.
Is that it?”
Yes. That’s it.
I like the dramatic use of composition in the Riehl so-not-gay-sweater pic. The cupboard door really accentuates the location of his cranium, for those of us who were certain that it was otherwise anatomically situated (my money was on the sigmoid colon).
OT: Fricken Hitch again. Even when he goes after someone I loathe, he STILL sounds like an ass. http://www.slate.com/id/2170474
When I was hired as Washington editor for a now-defunct London Sunday paper, he rang up the management to warn them that I was a dangerous and wicked person and to advise them strongly to get rid of me. I did think of suing for defamation at this stage, but I decided that the whole thing was too interesting. The feud began to be a “thing” in the gossip columns. I privately put Conrad Black (as he still then was) on my evil-eye list. This Don’t F*** With Hitch curse actually works—look at what happened to Saddam Hussein—but Black declined to mend his ways (to the contrary, he even put Henry Kissinger on his well-remunerated board of advisers), and now look what’s happened.
Kee-rist.
Re: Hitch
If anyone should be gloating at the collapse and disgrace of Lord Black of Crossharbour, the absurd title with which Conrad Black invested himself on being raised to the British peerage, that someone should be me.
Althousian.
“Don’t Fuck with Hitch curse”…
Now I have to fuck with him. I wonder if he’s teaching in the fall and I can audit his course. His teaching partner likes me better than him.
“Meet the Depressed”? Oh, fer… Is that the best they can do? “Press the Meat” is so much better.
Also, I had that sweater. I got it at Eddie Bauer in, like, 1992. I stopped wearing it about 10 years ago and donated it. It’s possible Dan picked it up at a Value Village somewhere. If so, I’m sorry for the role I may have played in this.
Yes, I am detecting the aroma of desperation too. Along with a growing sense of horror that everything Dan believes in is crumbling before his eyes. The next few years will not be kind to the likes of Dan Riehl.
What is this “striped out” phrase? I’ve never heard that before. “Crossed out,” “exed out,” any number of variants, sure. But “striped out”? It sounds vaguely tweedy-Anglophile, like referring to quotation marks as “inverted commas.”
FlipYrWhig, I suspect it was meant to read “stripped out”. As in, what the Bush junta does to any report that doesn’t meet their standards (ie contains “facts”).
Sweater on, chest out, chin up, brace head against cabinet, and…VOGUE!