Bush's wacko Inaug. speech: Is MSM finally waking up?

[moggie12]

I see glimmers of hope: It looks like Bush's bizarre "Crusade to End Tyranny" speech seems to have finally woke some people up. Is there a chance everybody will finally realize what a NUT he is?

Signs of intelligent life in the MSM:

Peggy Noonan's WSJ piece expressing alarm:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1516689

Howard Fineman's blog sarcastically attacking speech:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1513652


Chris Matthew's has been amazingingly blunt about how crazy and hypocritical this whole "ending tyranny" thing is. Even Morton Kondracke and Fred Barnes on Fox couldn't explain away the lunacy of of the speech: They punted, both of them saying we'll have to wait to the State of the Union to see what Bush is really talking about.

Could Bush have finally "gone a bridge too far"? What if MSM and more mainstrean Republicans finally realize Bush is insane??

[seabeyond]

1. i turned on msnbc for about a minute

during the inaugral. i thought i was going to get a look at the protestors, i got to see bush walking with laura in their safe zone. all i heard from tweety was the fawning and slobbery all over himself of the grandness of affair, the man bush is, how brave of him to walk this little distance

had to turn off quick

so what he may be saying now doesnt seem consistant to what i heard from him

[ClassWarrior]

2. I haven't been paying attention to the whores...

...but if that's true, that's great. One note about language though. Do YOU consider Tweety, Whineman, Nooner, and Barnesyard "mainstream?" If not, then please don't call them the "MSM."

They are the Corporate Media, plain and simple.

(This "framing moment" was brought to you by the Rockridge Institute...)

<LOL>

NGU.

[still_one]

3. don't believe it

noonan is just upset because they didn't ask her to write the speech. She is NOT a nice person. As far as matthews, screw him, he helped propel * to power. fineman is so open minded that his brains fall out of his head

It is too little too late, and frankly until the democrats start electing representatives which stand for democratic principles instead of republican look alikes, it isn't going to get better

[ClassWarrior]

6. So have you joined your county party to make sure that happens??

Well??

NGU.

[moggie12]

10. Yep, been active for many years in politics

Helped ran a County Executive race -- it's fun down in the trenches. Also have been sending out a blizzard of e-mails and letters to MSM/Corporate Media: Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I think they pay attention when people take time out from watching American Idol and the other garbage on TV to pay attention to what's going on in this country.

P.S. What does NGU stand for? I've seen that a lot on posts.

[ClassWarrior]

15. ~high-five~ to a fellow "hopelessly naive" Progressive!

NGU = Never Give Up, my personal motto since Nov. 3.

NGU.

[senseandsensibility]

23. My husband and and I are very active in our county

Dem party, and I agree that everyone should be. However, JFK won our county by more than thirty percent, Barbara Boxer will never be defeated here, and we are singing to the choir in effect. Local politics is good and rewarding, but we really need more activism in the red states, and conservative areas to make any real difference.

[ClassWarrior]

25. ~high fives~ for two active Boxer Rebels!!!

Give Barbara our love from Cheese Country.

NGU.

[moggie12]

30. Boxer is my hero

I still consider myself more of a moderate, centrist-type Democrat, but I'm 10,000+% behind Boxer. She was the one that had the guts to stand up and put the truth about Rice on the table -- I think the other Dems only got up the nerve to be critical of Rice because Boxer got the ball rolling. It's appalling to me that the Dems were just going to lay down and rubber-stamp her nomination. Go Barbara, go!!

"Sense and sensiblity" makes a good point, IMO. Local grassroots efforts are essential, but we're never going to wrest control of the country back from the nut-jobs unless we can de-brainwash the more intelligent people in the red states and the growing, tilting conservative suburbs of many states. First step in doing this, IMO, is doing something about media. Whether the media is simply incompetent, corporate-controlled, or whatever, we have to try and influence it -- hence, my recent barrage of letters requesting they start focusing on the truth!

[liberal N proud]

4. Does a president give a state of the union in an inaguration year?

For some reason, I did not think they did. Could be wrong.

[moggie12]

17. Wow, good catch

Apparently, they're not technically considered "State of the Union" speeches (see below). I'm assuming Bush is going to be addressing Congress soon, since Kondracke and Barnes mentioned it, but now I'm confused as to what exactly is going to happen. I hope Bush does make a speech, because he'd probably go into more detail about this crazy "ending tyranny" plan and more people would freak out.


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou.php

Snip
Also, the three most recent presidents (Bush, Clinton, and G.W.Bush) addressed a joint session of Congress shortly after their inaugurations but these messages are actually not considered to be "State of the Union" addresses. Bush's 1989 and Clinton's 1993 messages are called "Administration Goals" speeches, and G.W. Bush's 2001 speech is actually his "Budget Message." For research purposes, it is probably harmless to categorize these as State of the Union messages since the impact of such a speech on public, media, and congressional perceptions of presidential leadership and power should be the same as if the address was an official State of the Union. These speeches are included in the table below with an asterisk.

[kedrys]

5. Some of the talking heads were wondering out loud about what the hell

* was babbling about. George sWill even harrumphed about * making us look like a banana republic. Sorta refreshing, although I'm not holding my breath or anything.

I didn't have the stomach to watch the coronation, but the bits I saw made * sound like an even worse lunatic than anything he's ever said up til now.

[flordehinojos]

7. whateve the msm Iis realizing now...it is a little bit too late...bush is

in. ... as for myself, i believe they knew it, they enabled him, and they lauded him like a god while bush kept his agenda covert -- now that it is overt, o, God... the mainstream hypocrites are having cows. well, tsk, tsk, tsk. i don't buy it from them.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Yeah, but it wouldn't hurt to have them pissed off for our...

...impeachment party.

NGU.

[flordehinojos]

13. good point--they should 'bring it on'!

[DODI]

9. The Noonan piece really surprised me. I heard Howard on AAR after

he did the blog entry -- he seemed a bit scared of the speech. MSM does not seem to be taking the speech lightly or in a welcoming way. Maybe they could stop talking about Sponge Bob 24/7 and delve into this a little more. I know they want a younger audience -- but, really, talk about the speech!

[moggie12]

14. Yes, Noonan piece suprised me, too

I thought it was significant Noonan spoke up, especially since Bush is trying to position himself as the new Reagan. I got the impression she was saying Bush's "rid the world of tyranny" wackiness is nothing like Reagan's "war against communism". (Jeez, Bush's speech was scary...)

[senseandsensibility]

24. Noonan is seriously

insane. If she was scared by the speech, it must have been truly bone chilling.

[McKenzie]

11. ** isn't in charge imho

He's just a front man for very clever corporate interests. A semi-literate oil spiv like **, with little grasp of the intracacies of world politics, couldn't operate as US president on his own. He just reads scripts.

[montana500]

12. Matthews helped elect Bush

by never showing the truth baout his policy and agenda across a wide spectrum of issues. His show is worthless and he is an asswipe.

[ClassWarrior]

16. Worthless asswipes are fun to manipulate...

:evilgrin:

~hee-hee-hee-hee-hee...~

NGU.

[moggie12]

18. That's why I was hopeful when I heard him last night

He's been a Bush apologist for four years now (and disgustingly dismissive of the Dems and the anti-Bush side) and now suddenly it's like he woke up and said "Holy Shit": I think Bush's speech really freaked him out. More importanly, since he's such a slave to public opinion -- always sticking his finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing-- I thought it was a sign of a change in the "collective wisdom". In other words, even if he realized Bush is a maniac, he probably wouldn't be going out on a limb so far if he didn't think a lot of other people in "offical Washington" thought so too. I'm thinking maybe the tide is finally turning, but then again, I've been wrong before (I just keep hoping.....)

[Cell Whitman]

19. They are just deceptive people trying to save an opening

to jump ship - act like they had nothing to do with it.

They turned on his daddy because he wasn't "pure" enough. As things go from bad to worse they will turn on Chimpageddon. For the wingnuts it is just a way to ACT like Bush isn't a "true" member of the cult of conservatism, so his failures aren't the cults. The theocrats will say things are bad because * isn't theo enough and the fascists will be pissed because he openly exposes who they are or that he isn't quite their kind'a fascist.

Like others have said, it's too late for them. They enabled this.

I would say Tweets doesn't know he is really two faced but he admitted it. Before he quit writing for the SFchronicle you could see, quite obviously, that he was writing stuff VERY critical of Bush and at the same time on his show he praised the child king, defended him, talked him up. Someone on the BC board went to a function where Tweets spoke and confronted him about it and he admitted that it was true. I don't think he said it was on purpose, he's too dishonest for that, but he admitted his written articles were against Bush. iirc, the poster said that his wife gave him the evil eye when he admitted it, like she wasn't pleased with him.

Maybe that was why he quit the column, he couldn't speak ill of the Cult's current leader and it was gnawing at him.

Tweety makes my stomach turn because at least one of him knows better.

He and the whole deceitful group enabled this man. Very, very un-American. imho.

[Z_I_Peevey]

22. Any criticism we see now from the corporate whores

is strictly cover-your-ass stuff. They have consistently shown they have no core beliefs, morals or regard for the truth. So it is impossible for them to be "appalled" or "horrified" at anything their little tyrant does.

They are just getting a little something-something on the public record in case the torches and pitchforks get too close to THEIR mansions.

[Cell Whitman]

29. that's a great way to put it

They are just getting a little something-something on the public record in case the torches and pitchforks get too close to THEIR mansions.

they can get back to business as usual now, though I hope...

[JerseygirlCT]

20. Had Hardball on for just a few minutes Thurs. night

and all they were talking about is the possibility of attacking Iran. It was disturbing, of course, but then I realized: no, this is good -- they're talking about it now, they're onto the scheme, and instead of burying it as they did last time, they're highlighting it.

I really don't think he'll find it so easy this time. If even the folks on Hardball saw through to the real text of the speech, then maybe there's hope the MSM will actually cover the story this time.

[fooj]

21. Peggy Noonan's piece was astonishing!

If Peggy thinks he's over the top...these whack jobs have gone too far! Tee Hee! I love it when they start turning on their own...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. Bush's bizarre "Crusade to End Tyranny"

do some reading, some introspection, some soul searching, some actual thinking... then perhaps he will have an original thought worth thinking. To think that what he and his brood do in the name of democracy is anything less than criminal is a testament to just how warped these neocons truly are.

Tyranny:
http://www.ifg.org/news/IraqHandOver.html
A sampling of the most important orders demonstrates the economic imprint left by the Bush administration: Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" - which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.


Crusade:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/ipc-5-7-04.html
An illegal and immoral war, betrayed by images that reveal our racism
by Robert Fisk

07 May 2004

First, our enemies created the suicide bomber. Now, we have our own digital suicide bomber, the camera. Just look at the way US army reservist Lynndie England holds the leash of the naked, bearded Iraqi. Take a close look at the leather strap, the pain on the prisoner's face. No sadistic movie could outdo the damage of this image. In September 2001, the planes smashed into the buildings; today, Lynndie smashes to pieces our entire morality with just one tug on the leash.

Truth:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471265179/qid=1106416318/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-2003387-1001607
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0471265179.01._PIdp-schmooS,TopRight,7,-26_PE37_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
From Publishers Weekly
With breezy storytelling and diligent research, Kinzer has reconstructed the CIA's 1953 overthrow of the elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, who was wildly popular at home for having nationalized his country's oil industry. The coup ushered in the long and brutal dictatorship of Mohammad Reza Shah, widely seen as a U.S. puppet and himself overthrown by the Islamic revolution of 1979. At its best this work reads like a spy novel, with code names and informants, midnight meetings with the monarch and a last-minute plot twist when the CIA's plan, called Operation Ajax, nearly goes awry. A veteran New York Times foreign correspondent and the author of books on Nicaragua (Blood of Brothers) and Turkey (Crescent and Star), Kinzer has combed memoirs, academic works, government documents and news stories to produce this blow-by-blow account. He shows that until early in 1953, Great Britain and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company were the imperialist baddies of this tale. Intransigent in the face of Iran's demands for a fairer share of oil profits and better conditions for workers, British Foreign Secretary Herbert Morrison exacerbated tension with his attitude that the challenge from Iran was, in Kinzer's words, "a simple matter of ignorant natives rebelling against the forces of civilization." Before the crisis peaked, a high-ranking employee of Anglo-Iranian wrote to a superior that the company's alliance with the "corrupt ruling classes" and "leech-like bureaucracies" were "disastrous, outdated and impractical." This stands as a textbook lesson in how not to conduct foreign policy.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

LIES and DECEPTION: www.newamericancentury.org

Correction to PNAC: www.OldAmericanCentury.org

[moggie12]

28. Great resources - thanks

I'd never heard of the anti-PNAC group. Their "statement of principles" sums up the problem perfectly.

I'm going to get my hands on that Iran book -- I don't think I've read anything about US/British role there since college (long time ago...). One of the more bizzare aspects of the Iraq invasion was Britain and US getting together on it -- brought back memories of the imperialism days, when the great powers were more open about what they were doing...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

31. If you are interested in some of what has gone down in Central America

you may want to at least read the reviews on this recent telling book.... I have learned of this type of publication by listening to NPR radio... media for thinking person..... :)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618221395/qid=1106421952/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-2251435-6172106?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0618221395.01._PIdp-schmooS,TopRight,7,-26_PE32_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

From Publishers Weekly
Written in the vein of a Robert Kaplan travel journal, this profound book traces the history of Guatemala's 36-year internal struggle through personal interviews that recount the heart-wrenching stories of plantation owners, army officials, guerrillas and the wretchedly poor peasants stuck in the middle. Wilkinson's narrative unfolds gradually, beginning with his quest to unlock the mysteries of the short-lived 1952

Law of Agrarian Reform, which saw the redistribution of land to the working class. He goes on to explain many of the causes and consequences of the country's political and social problems. At one point, Wilkinson vividly describes how the entire town of Sacuchum uncharacteristically gathered to recount for him and thus record for the outside world how the army raped, tortured and massacred members of the community because they were believed to have supported the guerrillas. Much of what's revealed in Wilkinson's account of the country's trials is hard to stomach, especially his description of CIA involvement in Guatemala.

In many instances, Wilkinson's personal story gets in the way of the larger account he is trying to tell, and the book becomes more about him (he was just out of college in 1993, when he made the trip) than about events in Guatemala. However, this book is both easy to read and compelling, and Wilkinson's little self-indulgences are easily forgivable given the powerful subject matter and how well it is told by Wilkinson, now a lawyer with Human Rights Watch. B&w photos.
Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

[John_H]

27. Sure. Now that he's safely innagurated, they can return to pretending

be reporters.

[Cell Whitman]

32. Arnaud de Borchgrave slammed Bush

in his interview here:

http://www.iifwp.org/publications/vopeace/

He slams Bush as if he didn't help Moon set the table to make a Bush possible in this great land.

That page of videos also represents UPI openly joining Moon's manipulation of the planet. Most of those featured are longtime moonies or longtime suck ups and hanger's on. Marshall the main host, is a biggy at UPI and has taken an oath to Moon.

find that here:
http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2003/11/new-upi-editors-journalism-oath-to-rev.html

[moggie12]

34. Can't get that video to play on my computer

I googled and found a September '04 article where he pretty much says Iraq is a disaster:
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040921-085104-7556r.htm

Did he argue against going into Iraq at the start? Or is this something new on his part? The moonie Washington Times supported it, right??

[Cell Whitman]

36. the WTimes supported Bush

but the moonies CLAIM(you can't believe what they say) that Moon was against the war. They use that as proof that the WT isn't a Moon tool which is a lie. I think Moon is for anything that he is behind or which creates chaos, he thrives on it. He has said part of his plan is to be ready with the institutions after the world's economies collapse. He has all these orgs around the world and his zilch members to be there to pick up the pieces. They have handed out membership cards to his one world org. He told the members not to see themselves as Americans or Japanese but as citizens of Cheong Il Guk, which is his one world Bush "the shill" 41 helps him promote.

http://cellwhitman.blogspot.com/

sorry the vids didn't work, you might try them later.

[Jacobin]

33. Not at all

the MSM will be slightly concerned, carefully voice the fears of those who aren't knowledgeable, and then have 100 PNAC assholes come on their talking head shows to 'explain' how its all reasonable, there is nothing to fear, 'freedom isn't free', and the rest of the blah blah blah blah to justify their attempt at world domination, and (oh by the way) if you are against world domination you are a terraist, and then half or so of the population will shrug their shoulders and go along with it

[PROGRESSIVE1]

35. I can see where Fineman can mock Bush' speech because of all...

the absurd things he said. Tweety and Noonan however.....
Noonan is self absorbed and is upset that the speech wasn't "REAGAN" enough for her. Also, this speech was full of shit and fear. No talk of hope what so ever. Tweety is full of shit. His head WAS, IS, and ALWAYS will be in Bushitler's ANUS!!!

:eyes:

[TheDonkey]

37. I wish they would have talked about it before the election

this man is a... NUT.