I [heart] CNN’s Search Algorithm (More on Campbell Brown and Dan Senor)

Just looking through the logs and I found a link that led me to this search result on CNN.com.

Campbell Brown's Bullshit Program

Campbell Brown

This is as a result of doing some fact checking on Campbell Brown’s hit piece on Obama’s fundraising (or as she’d say it, how Obama lied to rake in millions)

The funny part is, after reading more about the story, I realized that CNN had done their own fact-checking…

The Verdict: Mostly true. Obama did indicate he would accept public financing if his opponent did the same. But he did not sign anything, as McCain states. Obama did not sit down with McCain before Obama’s decision on public financing, but members of both campaigns met with each other on the issue.

You would think it would take a bit more than a quibble to call someone a liar and thief, but not for Campbell Brown.
I wonder, now, if this has anything to do with the father of her children, and salesman for the War in Iraq (2003 and 2004 version), Dan Senor.  Dan is a budding young neocon, with a resume that already includes working for the Carlyle Group, the Council of Foreign Relations, and fucking up at least one Middle Eastern country.  He hopes to fuck up another one (Iran) and is currently writng a history of Israel.  Who would have thunk it?

Mr. Senor, a regular commentator on Fox News who is married to CNN anchor Campbell Brown, recently served as a campaign adviser to Mitt Romney. Before that, he worked for the Bush administration as an adviser to Paul Bremer, who was at one point charged with overseeing the reconstruction of post-invasion Iraq. Mr. Senor’s sister (his co-writer’s wife) heads the Jerusalem office of the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC.

The book by Mr. Senor and Mr. Singer, titled Start Up Nation, will “explore Israel’s success in the global economy,” according to a description provided by Twelve’s publicity director Cary Goldstein. Twelve acquired the book in a preempt from U.K.-based literary agent Ed Victor.

BTW folks, if you really want to know why the Iraq War was such an expensive debacle, why why got lied into the war, why some journalists didn’t ask too many hard questions while working at or for the White House, and why someone with a complete and utter disdain for a culture was sent to rebuilt it, you can ask Dan Senor and Campbell Brown.  They have personal experience in the matter.

And it’s a funny cliche that Jon Stewart makes fun of all the time.

On April 2, 2006, Brown married her second husband Daniel Samuel Senor (born 1971), a Republican consultant who regularly appears on Fox News.[3][4] Brown converted to Judaism, her husband’s faith;[5] the two were married in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony.[6]

Look, I got nothing against jewish people, particularly the older ones, (and most “real” jews wouldn’t consider Campbell one now anyway) so please don’t think that’s why I’m taking it so hard to Dan and Campbell.   I do think it is a bit revealing about why Dan Senor fucked up Iraq so badly, and why he showed complete and utter ignorance, bordering on contempt, for Muslim history and culture.

When you have enough personal knowledge of the history of Israel to write a book about a small part of that history, you probably spent more time studying that than Arabic, eh?  When your sister works for AIPAC, what do you think the tone around the dinner table is?

Don’t you think it would be a good idea to have a guy who speaks Arabic, or would even want to, with you as a “spokesman” when you invade an Arab country?  Naah, not for neocons.  For neocons, studying Israel’s economic history is perfect experience for your next job of rebuilding a Muslim country.  Kinda like how the North ran Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War here in the U.S.  Works great.  Just look at how efficiently Atlanta was rebuilt.

I’m taking it so hard to Dan because I watched his smarmy face spout lies and bullshit and idiocy about the Iraq war for a number of years.    I’m taking it so hard to Campbell because during one of the great failures of the media during our time, the one that should keep us out of stupid wars by calling bullshit on smarmy PR assholes, she was instead making doughy eyes and babies with the very person she was supposed to be calling bullshit on.

Good to see how professionalism is rewarded in “punditry” (if she ever was, Campbell Brown is no longer a “journalist”).

Charles Krauthammer’s Lie (and read up on the “Bush Doctrine”)

[Charles Gibson] asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sarah Palin ponders the Bush Doctrine

Sarah Palin ponders the Bush Doctrine

Sensing his “gotcha” moment [1], Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube [2] that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11 [3], and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror.

[1] It was the “moose in headlights look in her eyes.
[2] “I’m a victim” argument.
[3] [And, as you’ve said any number of times…everything changed…including what you called the “Bush Doctrine.” ]

Charles Krauthammer – Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe – washingtonpost.com.

So a bunch of right-wingers have been using this to defend Palin’s complete lack of knowledge regarding the fact that Bush and his neocon buddies (one of which is teaching her foreign policy) completely changed the foreign policy philosophy of the United States.

The lie is easily exposed quickly. Watch now, if you can ignore facts like this, you too, can be a hack.

KRAUTHAMMER: I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

So in his inredibly egotistical daydreams, Charles Krauthammer has forgotten 9/11.

You see, in between Krauthammer writing BS policy for PNAC and AEI in June 2001 and the U.S. invading Iraq in 2002, there was a rather large event.

Since Gibson specifically mentioned what he was talking about, and Krauthammer specifically omitted Gibson mentioning that, you can see who the liar is here.

Palin had no idea was any of them was, and offers a couple of complete non-answers. Some, like Krauthammer, have jumpted to Palin’s defense and said that the term is ambiguous. But given Gibson’s clarification, that Kruathammers somehow missed, and the fact that the official through colloquial understandings of the term all have nothing to do with how she answered (I think she thought it was the “War on Terror” which is even more ambiguous).

She didn’t know what it was. If you would like to, please read on.

Then, if McCain nominates you for Vice President (and it is possible) you can know better….he certainly did….

Continue reading

McCain, Iraq : Can You Guess What He Said?

ABC News: McCain: Iraq Pullout May Mean Genocide

In a major address in California on foreign policy, the presumptive Republican nominee said, “It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible and premature withdrawal.”McCain Sees Progress in Iraq

Speaking to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, McCain, who has supported the war from the beginning, pointed to what he said were signs of progress: a decrease in violence and civilian and military deaths, Iraqis returning to work, markets open, and oil revenues increasing.

All of which is true, if you look at a three-day period in late 2007.   This is a guy who had a tougher reception in Iraq than Ahmedinijad.  Of course *every* U.S. political visitor had a tougher visit than ole Mahmoud.  I wonder what that says about the prospects of a long term presence/dominance of the region?