On Shoving it

[weaktwos]

Here is the transcript of the exchange between Heinz Kerry and McNickle.

You can see that initially McNickle is trying to nail her on "unamerican activities", which she did not say. Then I think it's obvious she got a little flustered. It seems more like she was challenging the notion that "unAmerican traits" is distinct from "un-American activities" and even "un-American".

[Sidebar: I'm watching Robert Reich on C-Span. Good lord, he's short. The guy who introduced him towered above him.]

It's a shame she got too flustered and a bit angry over the reporter's questions, but considering that McNickle and his paper are essentially the mouthpieces for Richard Mellon Scaife, the "funding father" of the right, I don't feel so bad. Then again, it's surprising she didn't tell him to "go fuck himself", which still seems to be acceptable among the conservatives.

In other news, some folks are saying they will vote for Bush because we need someone strong in defense to combat folks like Osama. This was based on seeing some interviews of people outside the Democratic Convention, as well as callers to the morning CSPAN show.

It seems these folks forget that our current president lied about WMDs, and started a war with a country that contains no Osama. Terrorism is on the rise around the world, and we're still living in fear of the next terrorist attack. In the face of such a severe botch, and the rich continuing to get richer, with tax cuts giving them money they have no need to spend, it's amazing people want to continue to support President Bush.

Comments

I'll point this out elsewhere as well...

[cotharyus.livejournal.com]

The word I hear her specifically deny was not "traits" or "activities" it was "unamerican". She said she didn't use it, but it's obvious she did. If she's denying "activities" in favor of traits, why not say so? Anyhow, it's not the fact that she told the reporter to stuff it. I actually found that amusing. It's the fact that she's denying that she said unamerican when she very clearly did.

As for Bush lying about WMD - which, goddamnit is its own pural because it stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction - I don't think that's what I'd call it. He made a call baised on the information he had at the time. If the information was faulty, then he didn't lie about anything, unless he knew the information was faulty, and I don't think he did. Note that this doesn't make Bush a hero, or anyone else a bastard, it's just my take on the situation. I won't walk a political fence, anyone who has spoken with me about my politics knows them, but also knows that I won't discuss them in an open forum like this. It's because the system is corrupt.

Re: I'll point this out elsewhere as well...

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

Based on the transcript I read (which is now deleted, how interesting), and the video link in a reply above to Reannon, it's actually activity she's denying first. He first quizzes her on "Unamerican activities".

Now, it's fairly stupid to deny something you said when you are giving a speech on camera. She had to have known the press was present--and she did. She's no dummy. Everyone learns that you don't tell lies that are easily refutable. The fact that she denyed Unamerican aat the tale end seemed more of a passionate outburst. She was clearly wound up and miffed, hence her making a point to return to him after she terminated the conversation.

Now, you are, of course, free to believe what you wish about Bush. Granted, I don't know for certain that he himself knowingly lied about the justification for the war on Iraq. I do know he has surrounded himself with people who knowingly mislead the country. (take a look at www.militaryweek.com, specifically Karen Kwietkowski's stuff : http://www.militaryweek.com/kwiatkowski.shtml) She's a conservative, she worked in the Pentagon, and she knew intelligence was being manipulated by the politically controlled Office of Special Programs. These folks had a lot of intelligence that suggested Iraq was not a threat, and yet they opted to focus on the faulty information from Chalabi and his cohorts. (Recall that the New York Times, which had helped to marshall public opinion of the war by validating information they were getting from two different sources--the White House and their own contacts, which in turn got their information from the same people.)

It was not the best information they had at the time; it was the information they(the administration) wanted to hear and use to justify their other goals.