Rachel Maddow Rips Apart Cheney, GOP Attack Machine

quote:

Originally posted by Nobluedog:
Rachel Maddow Rips Apart Cheney, GOP Attack Machine. Watch Video!


Memo to the media: not only is it good journalism to fact-check Republican lies, it's entertaining too. If we wanted to hear unfiltered Republican lies, we'd watch Fox. If you're not Fox, your audience wants reporting of the sort Maddow delivered last night.

Watch:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/...C_gop_attack_machine

What's up clifford? You and your boy, madcow gettin' it on again? Too bad only you and 3 or 4 hundred other people saw it.

quote:

Too bad only you and 3 or 4 hundred other people saw it.

you know, I think Rachel Maddow has a larger share of the audience than that, but it us a shame that more people aren't told the truth instead of the garbage that is constantly spewed on Fixed News. Maybe we can increase ratings.

quote:

Originally posted by rethuglicansmustbestopped:

quote:

Too bad only you and 3 or 4 hundred other people saw it.

you know, I think Rachel Maddow has a larger share of the audience than that, but it us a shame that more people aren't told the truth instead of the garbage that is constantly spewed on Fixed News. Maybe we can increase ratings.

As long as msnbc, cnn, etc are the spigots for untreated liberal sewage, don't hold your breath.

News is not news anymore. It's just for ratings regardless of which network you watch. They are there to tell you their opinion of the news. I listen to Madcow but that doesn't mean I believe everything he says for the truth.

quote:

Originally posted by HARLEY FLSTS:
News is not news anymore. It's just for ratings regardless of which network you watch. They are there to tell you their opinion of the news. I listen to Madcow but that doesn't mean I believe everything he says for the truth.

"He" is actually a she and openly homosexual.

PROOF! PROOF! We need proof!!!

I did not see the entire Maddow segment on Cheney. I tuned in about halfway through and I wondered why all those little torn-up tatters of Cheney were lying all around.

You go, Rachel!

Maddox is Olbermann in drag. The networks can't afford two of them. Look at the nose and shape of the forehead.

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
Maddox is Olbermann in drag. The networks can't afford two of them. Look at the nose and shape of the forehead.

Don't forget brain-size....er, lack of it.

WOW! An openly gay liberal criticizing a Republican? Who would have EVER expected that?

But a drunk Democratic Sentator speaking on the Senate floor is not worth her commenting on. Who would have expected that?

Destroying ignorant liberal posts is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I would say it would be much harder if they ever start using facts and common sense but they can't. Those two things are NEVER on their side.

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
Maddox is Olbermann in drag. The networks can't afford two of them. Look at the nose and shape of the forehead.

Don't forget brain-size....er, lack of it.

As to brain size and Rachel Maddow, consider the following, from Wikipedia::

"A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[12] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University."

So--this allegedly small-brained lady is a Stanford grad and a Rhodes scholar with a doctorate from Oxford University PhD.

If Maddow's brain is small, it certainly is productive. How many doctorates you got?

Keith Olbermann was accepted at Cornell University, an Ivy League school, at the age of 16 and graduated at 20. Pretty young for a college grad, wouldn't you say? How does YOUR educational attainment compare with that of these two allegedly small-brained people?

Sheeeesh! You carping clowns get more ridiculous with every post!

quote:

Originally posted by JOY4567:
WOW! An openly gay liberal criticizing a Republican? Who would have EVER expected that?

But a drunk Democratic Sentator speaking on the Senate floor is not worth her commenting on. Who would have expected that?

I agree joy, it should be an openly gay republican criticizing a consevative closet gay Republican with the double standards they set forth. You forget that they're just as many gay republicans out there that are open, but many are in the closet like Mark Foley a republican gay in the closet.

quote:

Originally posted by Nobluedog:

quote:

Originally posted by JOY4567:
WOW! An openly gay liberal criticizing a Republican? Who would have EVER expected that?

But a drunk Democratic Sentator speaking on the Senate floor is not worth her commenting on. Who would have expected that?

I agree joy, it should be an openly gay republican criticizing a consevative closet gay Republican with the double standards he sets forth. You forget that they are just as many gay republicans out there that are open, but many are in the closet like Mark Foley a republican gay in the closet.

How do you know? Have you been sleeping with them?

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:
Destroying ignorant liberal posts is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I would say it would be much harder if they ever start using facts and common sense but they can't. Those two things are NEVER on their side.

Destroying ignorant liberal posts? Yes this is what right wingers have always been about, is to keep facts off the board, news etc and keep ignorant conservatives stupid and ignorant of the truth. This is why poor stupid and ignorant conservatives will vote against themsevles each time.

quote:

Originally posted by Nobluedog:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:
Destroying ignorant liberal posts is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I would say it would be much harder if they ever start using facts and common sense but they can't. Those two things are NEVER on their side.

Destroying ignorant liberal posts? Yes this is what right wingers have always been about, is to keep facts off the board, news etc and keep ignorant conservatives stupid and ignorant of the truth. This is why poor stupid and ignorant conservatives will vote against themsevles each time.

True that we don't vote in lockstep like is required by the dimocrat/communist party but you guys have a lock on stupidity. Just read your own posts!

"He" is actually a she and openly homosexual.

What does her sexual orientation have to do with the subject? Documented evidence was given that Mr. Chaney misrepresented the truth.

I still say he/she looks like Wil Wheaton.... totally looks like...

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by kperk014:

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
Maddox is Olbermann in drag. The networks can't afford two of them. Look at the nose and shape of the forehead.

Don't forget brain-size....er, lack of it.

As to brain size and Rachel Maddow, consider the following, from Wikipedia::

"A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[12] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University."

So--this allegedly small-brained lady is a Stanford grad and a Rhodes scholar with a doctorate from Oxford University PhD.

If Maddow's brain is small, it certainly is productive. How many doctorates you got?

Keith Olbermann was accepted at Cornell University, an Ivy League school, at the age of 16 and graduated at 20. Pretty young for a college grad, wouldn't you say? How does YOUR educational attainment compare with that of these two allegedly small-brained people?

Sheeeesh! You carping clowns get more ridiculous with every post!

Except, that Olbermann didn't go to to Cornell U, but their agricultural college, a state extension school, separate from Cornell with lower acceptance standards.

I guess that the message that Mr. Chaney gave out false information stood up loud and clear.
This is serious stuff.

The messengers are attacked when the message dosen't fit within the mind set of the listeners.

What, SPECIFICALLY, about Mr. Chaney, a prominent political figure, who has given false information to the American people.

No doubt, the next comments will be in the everybody else does it category, not addressing this issue.

I'd give both Bush and Obama bad marks for their treatment of terrorists. Giving the terrorists full legal rights is a big mistake. Military commissions are the correct venue. The present commission system was approved by congress and the courts.

In civilian courts, full disclosure is required. In past trials, federal prosecutors disclosed bin Laden was a suspect and we were listening to his satellite phone calls. The calls stopped and Osama went to ground.

All jehadim terrorists, not citizens, committing acts of terror in the US should be tried under commissions. They should be immediately interrogated by the CIA to gain intell about the jedadim's connections with the network. Terrorists, who've failed in their suicide missions, are especially vulnerable to interrogation as they've failed and weren't trained to resist and their mindset in not well fortified against interrogation. We saw the same thing with captured Japanese POWs, they didn't expect to survive and weren't prepared to resist. And, no I'm not talking about torture, simply the type interrogation allowed in the Army manual.

quote:

Originally posted by Freida:
I guess that the message that Mr. Chaney gave out false information stood up loud and clear.
This is serious stuff.

The messengers are attacked when the message dosen't fit within the mind set of the listeners.

What, SPECIFICALLY, about Mr. Chaney, a prominent political figure, who has given false information to the American people.

No doubt, the next comments will be in the everybody else does it category, not addressing this issue.

Who are you talking about? Lon? He's dead you know.

kperk014, you should know, it was on fox news.

quote:

Originally posted by Nobluedog:
kperk014, you should know, it was on fox news.

That Lon Chaney is dead? I know. The other stuff? There has been mistakes made along the way because we were new to fighting terrorism in our own country. We are supposed to learn from mistakes but of course we can't expect that from a party of people with absolutely NO common sense, period.

As to the argument that Reid, the shoe bomber, was tried in civilian court, at that time the military commission system was not approved by congress or upheld by the supreme court. The US used the venue it had at the time.

Both the terroist guys were tried by the civilian courts and convicted. Good job.

quote:

Originally posted by Freida:
Both the terroist guys were tried by the civilian courts and convicted. Good job.

Maybe they should hold this circus of an upcoming trial in YOUR living room. Now THAT would be a good job.

quote:

Originally posted by Freida:
Both the terroist guys were tried by the civilian courts and convicted. Good job.

Yes, but because of full disclosure, bin Laden was warned and went into hiding and quit using his satellite phone, which the US was listening in on.

Once more, at that time, the present military commission system wasn't approved by congress and the courts.

quote:

Yes, but because of full disclosure, bin Laden was warned and went into hiding and quit using his satellite phone, which the US was listening in on.

Would appreciate some help. This is so interesting, but Google as I may I can't find anything about it - I'm just not Googling in the right places.

Question. How is it possible that classified information and today, information involving national security as well be disclosed?

Do/have things been tightened up in this area?

Is this the same brilliant Rachel Maddow that said there was no preamble to the Constitution?

Yep.

quote:

Originally posted by KissedGrits:
Is this the same brilliant Rachel Maddow that said there was no preamble to the Constitution?

Yep.

But she's a liberal goofball so to the left-wing she is brilliant! Stop confusing that issue with FACTS!!!

So you don't like Rachael M. we get the message - big deal.

What about the topic - misreprsention of the truth by Mr. C.? Or don't youcare?

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

As to brain size and Rachel Maddow, consider the following, from Wikipedia::

"A graduate of Castro Valley High School in Castro Valley, Maddow earned a degree in public policy from Stanford University in 1994.[12] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship. She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. In 2001, she completed her Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in politics from Oxford University."

So--this allegedly small-brained lady is a Stanford grad and a Rhodes scholar with a doctorate from Oxford University PhD.

If Maddow's brain is small, it certainly is productive. How many doctorates you got?

Keith Olbermann was accepted at Cornell University, an Ivy League school, at the age of 16 and graduated at 20. Pretty young for a college grad, wouldn't you say? How does YOUR educational attainment compare with that of these two allegedly small-brained people?

Sheeeesh! You carping clowns get more ridiculous with every post!

A perfect example of how one can have an education and still be a fool.

So, Maddow earned a couple of touchy, feelie majors that result in her holding a position where she might rave and rant on a third rate TV channel. Big Whoop!

Rachel Maddow with life partner Susan Mikula, talk about a match made in hell!

quote:

Originally posted by interventor12:
So, Maddow earned a couple of touchy, feelie majors that result in her holding a position where she might rave and rant on a third rate TV channel. Big Whoop!

Rachel Maddow with life partner Susan Mikula, talk about a match made in hell!

quote:

In civilian courts, full disclosure is required. In past trials, federal prosecutors disclosed bin Laden was a suspect and we were listening to his satellite phone calls. The calls stopped and Osama went to ground.

Full disclosure does not over ride our laws protecting classified/national security information.

..............................................
File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths'

By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 22, 2005

President Bush asserted this week that the news media published a U.S. government leak in 1998 about Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, alerting the al Qaeda leader to government monitoring and prompting him to abandon the device.

The story of the vicious leak that destroyed a valuable intelligence operation was first reported by a best-selling book, validated by the Sept. 11 commission and then repeated by the president.

But it appears to be an urban myth.

The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 -- and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.

The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.

Causal effects are hard to prove, but other factors could have persuaded bin Laden to turn off his satellite phone in August 1998. A day earlier, the United States had fired dozens of cruise missiles at his training camps, missing him by hours...........................................


http://www.washingtonpost.com/...AR2005122101994.html

................................................Interested? See also:

http://www.truthdig.com/report..._sat_phone_20060110/

http://www.rense.com/general21/noc.htm



Civil Trials: These trials occurred far to late to have been involved in any leak resulting in the cessation of Bin Laden's cell phone use.

Richard Reed: The prosecutor proceeded to obtain a grand jury indictment and on January 16, 2002, Reid was charged with eight criminal counts related to his acts of terrorism, namely: attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, placing an explosive device on an aircraft, attempted murder, interference with flight crew members and attendants, attempted destruction of an aircraft, using a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence and attempted wrecking of a mass transportation vehicle.[2]

Reid pled guilty to all eight counts on October 4, 2002.[13] On January 31, 2003, he was sentenced by Judge William Young to life in prison with no possibility of parole with three life sentences to be served consecutively.[14] Eight fines of $250,000 each were also imposed.[14][15] During the sentencing hearing Reid stated that he was an enemy of the United States and in league with Al-Qaeda.[16] Though Reid proclaimed he was a soldier of Allah under the command of Osama Bin Laden, Judge Young declared:

'You are not an enemy combatant, you are a terrorist' ... 'You are not a soldier in any army, you are a terrorist. To call you a soldier gives you far too much stature.'[14] Wiki



Zacarias Moussaoui: was tried in 2006

The left tried to brand it an urban myth. Sorry, not close and no cigae.

"After the United Kingdom, the country Bin Laden called most frequently was Yemen, where Al-Qaeda terrorists bombed the destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors, in October 2000. It received more than 200 calls on the satphone. Yemen is now the subject of an American security operation and its government is co-operating to ensure that support for Al-Qaeda is broken.

Other calls were made to Sudan (131), Iran (106), Azerbaijan (67), Pakistan (59) and Saudi Arabia (57). Six calls to America are recorded and 13 appear to have been made to a telephone on a ship in the Indian Ocean. Six were made to Italy, where police earlier this year uncovered an Al-Qaeda cell planning a poison gas attack on the American embassy, four to Malaysia and two to Senegal."

http://www.rense.com/general21/noc.htm

Note that bin Laden was still using the phone well past 1998.

The trial:

"Evidence that Saad Al-***ih bought the satellite phone later rung by one of the men who blew up the US embassy in Nairobi emerged during a New York trial in 2000, when four al-Qaeda suspects were found guilty of the African embassy bombings.

United States attorney Kenneth Karas told a grand jury what was in Exhibit 1623: an order form for an Exact-M 22 Satellite Telephone, dated 1 November 1996: "and for the record, payment portion, Saad Al-***ih." The order was signed 'S. R. H. Al ***ih.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1862579.stm

Grand jury proceedings are private and secret in the US. When information is presented in civil court, it may not be classified or a national security threat. That is illegal.

The phone connection was public knowledge beginning in 1996.

(The al Qaeda leader's communication to aides via satellite phone had already been reported in 1996 -- and the source of the information was another government, the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan at the time.

The second time a news organization reported on the satellite phone, the source was bin Laden himself.)

Full disclosure does NOT override the US law pertaining to classified material/national security.

There was no staggering, sudden revelation about the phone contacts given out by the court - it was old news.

Its my understanding that the information was made available to the defendant's attorney, which is required even in grand jury proceedings.

My main points are that bin Laden continued to use satellite phones well past the supposed 1998 dates and only ceased after the disclosure during the grand jury and trial in 2000. Remember, one of his men took a satellite phone and pretended to be bin Laden while bin Laden made his escape from Afghanistan.