Are Bushbots Liars or do they just lack reading comprehension?

[emulatorloo]

This morning on the Chris Matthews Show, David Brooks, White House waterboy and NYT columnist again claimed that Ambassador Joe Wilson LIED in his NYT piece. Per Brooks, Wilson claimed that Dick Cheney sent him to Africa! And Dick Cheney never did that! Hence the White House had to defend Dick Cheney and Joe Wilson deserved blah blah blah blah.

So are the Bush Bots liars, or can they just not read very well? David Brooks never impressed me as being that smart. Although I guess if my paycheck was high enough and I had no morals, maybe I could play dumb too.

Again, relevant paragraph from Wilson's editorial:

<snip>

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

<sniP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ei=5070&en=e21423b05b9d4a47&ex=1122350400&pagewanted=print&position=

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Both.

[Boredtodeath]

2. Common practice for ALL partisans

And we, at DU, are just as guilty of omitting facts that don't support our argument.

A classic example is the Ohio evoting issue - over and over DUers post about Diebold stealing Ohio when only 2 of the 88 Ohio counties even used Diebold equipment.

There was a lot wrong in Ohio, but (for the moment) we cannot blame it on Diebold.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. You're right.

Diebold rocks!

:headbang:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. I was just funnin'.

If you've got any info on how Diebold has assisted the progressive cause, I'm interested. If you've got any information on how Diebold has shown impartiality, I'm interested. If you've got any information on how Diebold has shown a conservative tilt, I'm interested.


Ed: punc

[Boredtodeath]

19. I said none of the above

Nor implied it.

So, let's see if you can get this comment deleted too, huh?

Truth hurts, huh?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. I didn't delete anything. Above my pay grade.

How about giving out the dope about Diebold?

[Boredtodeath]

22. How about

reading my post without your preconceived bias?

Facts are facts whether you like them or not.

Diebold wasn't responsible for the 2004 Ohio election theft; others were.

Now, you can keep posting this stupid bullshit or you can work to stop them from being responsible for the 2006 Ohio (and Mississippi and Oklahoma and Missouri and Georgia and Maryland) theft.

Your pick.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Who said Diebold was responsible?

Talk about preconceived notions. You've got the posts in front of you. Where did I say Diebold was responsible?

I said Diebold :headbang:!

[Boredtodeath]

24. Plonk!

.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. "Ploof!"

Edit: And I raise you a Ponderyplafensnaggle.

[Jacobin]

3. They are just tribalists

Their tribe is right no matter what the facts clearly demonstrate. If you stop defending the tribe, even when it is blatantly in the wrong, you get thrown out of the tribe and no longer have its perquisites and protections.

they are just gangbangers and are due no more respect than that.

[thinkingwoman]

4. people of all political persuasions

have trouble comprehending what they read.

But there's no need to give David Brooks the benefit of the doubt. He's just a liar.

[Eric J in MN]

5. David Brooks is reciting a Talking Point.

He couldn't care less if the Talking Point is true or false.

Bush loyalists care about
#1) money
#2) power

The truth is like #349832503583548 for them.

[dogday]

6. Their Lies Are All Coming Back To Bite Them In the ASS! nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. Short answer, imho, they only see what they want to. Long answer...

cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a condition first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956, relating to his hypothesis of cognitive consistency.

Cognitive dissonance is a state of opposition between cognitions. For the purpose of cognitive consistency theory, cognitions are defined as being an attitude, emotion, belief or value, or even a mixture of these cognitions. In brief, the theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compel the human mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to minimize the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions.

http://www.answers.com/Cognitive%20dissonance

edited to add..

Conflicting cognitions: cognitive dissonance

Once two cognitions are held and there is a conflict between them, one falls into a state of cognitive dissonance. This may be demonstrated by someone purchasing a brand of washing machine, initially believing that it was the best product to buy. One's cognition is that a good washing machine has been bought. However, after the purchase, one may be exposed to another cognition informing one that there is a better washing machine out on the market (for example, through an advertisement). This then leads to an imbalance between cognitions and a psychological state which needs to seek consonance between the two cognitions.

snip>

Post-decisional dissonance may be increased by the importance of the issue, the length of time the subject takes to make or avoid the decision, and the extent to which the decision could be reversed.

[bigtree]

9. that's their deal

they talk up any old lie over and over till the idiots who put them in office repeat their sorry excuses in their defense.

They lie and deflect like a pack of ignorant fools when justice knocks.

[ClintonTyree]

12. Liars....and snakes.

It's in their DNA.

[Loge23]

13. Ben Stein drones on

The usually terrific CBS Sunday AM show was soiled today by Ben Stein's absurd piece on how best to support fellow evil-doers.
Drawing on his personal experience as a member of Nixon's staff (why do these creeps even want to mention that??), Stein urges Doubledumb to stand by Rove rather than throw anyone whom is interested in the truth any scraps to feed the feeding (read:truth) frenzy.
The real issue (as Frank Rich in the NYT keeps alive) is not only the ill-fated decision to execute our own sons & daughters along with 10,000 (Iraqi citizen deaths directly attributed to US military) or so Iraqi citizens but why.
What is the motive? Why are the neo-fascists doing this? Is it the oil?
Was that the motive to begin with? Is it Middle East presence?
Answer the motive question and we may have something.

[DefenseLawyer]

14. I blame the other "journalist"

on the panel for not calling him out, as you have done, simply by showing him what was PRINTED IN HIS PAPER and making him explain just where it said Dick sent him. I guess cross-examining lairs doesn't make good tv.

[emulatorloo]

15. To their credit, they seemed generally dismissive of Brooks

but a quick "STFU and stop your BS" would have been better.

[rasputin1952]

16. Couple of things here...it is easier to accept what is being spewed...

than actually expending energy to find facts. People are just plain intellectually lazy, and they would rather fall victim to their fears as opposed to seeking out solutions.

There is a 'breaking point', and it has been reached. With bush's #'s in the sewer, we are seeing that the nation is finally beginning to understand just how evil these people are. Only difference is, we saw it back in 2000, it took others up to 5 years.

While the insane part of the GOP, (neo-cons), have tried, w/some success, to equate Progressives w/Communists and the destruction of civilization as we know it; we have not been open enough to show them that the way of the ultra-right is the path to totalitarianism. History shows us that the ruling party inevitably becomes more 'conservative' in its views, that way, they can have a better chance of staying in power. Inevitably, citizens begin to feel the pressure and they revolt. Some have been violent, other revolutions have taken place at the polls.

The whole aspect of the bush regime has been to distort the truth and ignore facts wherever possible. There has not bee one instance where these people have been honest with the American public. They took 9-11 and changed it from an attack within this nation, to a worldwide calamity that ignored the very basis for the attack: bin-Laden's hatred for the US bases in Saudi Arabia and the World Bank.

Which brings up the point, where is bin-Laden? Strange how he just fell off the radar isn't it?

These people will lie to their hearts content, and as we speak the truth, people listen...it si a slow process, but seeing that bush is finally being seen as the complete moron he is, there is hope.

[mikehiggins]

17. Survey says....LIARS!!!! Congratulations!

I'd tell you what your prize was but its double top secret secret.

WIth whipped cream and almonds on top.

Seriously, if you don't already know the answer you just haven't been paying attention in class.

They lie because they can.

They lie bacause they like to

They lie because they want to always keep in shape to lie some more.

They are liars.

Search the archives for the Congressman (Tim Ryan) explaining why the Dems don't believe the GOPukes when they say there'll be no draft. It's very enlightening, and should have been on the air everyday during the 2004 campaign

But it wasn't.

[nuxvomica]

18. Brooks was "diss-assembling"

Which is when you assemble a way to diss somebody. Oh yeah, and he was also lying, too. He knows better and does it cuz he knows no one will call him on it. Would that they had, we would have seen Brooks fluster like Eddie Haskell being caught in a lie by Mrs. Cleaver. Of course not even Matthews who "knows most of the facts" decided to set him straight.
Thank you for noticing, though. I did and came here cuz I wanted to see if anybody else did. :hi:

[Stirk]

20. They're obvious liars- but it's to be expected. The *real* shame is on the

"journalists" who let this sort of obfuscation stand in an interview, rather than just calling bullshit.