Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Oh the horror ....
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, May 23, 2007

I do love it when a paid hack gets upset enough to say silly stuff:
Just yesterday White House Propaganda Minister Tony Snow attacked Al Gore for noting that the President has tried time and time again to link Al Qaeda and Iraq, and yesterday Bush did it again. Bush is claiming that because Bin Laden realized the strategic advantage of killing Americans right there on his doorstop in Iraq, this somehow justifies our continued occupation of that country.

Bush is an idiot, and he's killing Americans by his actions.

UPDATE: And the administration is shoveling out this propaganda to conservative bloggers in the guise of "a senior administration official" (Shocker: the propagandists don't have the guts to attribute their names to the lies). These people are so full of sh*t.
The "conservative blogger"? Uh, that would be me.

The paid hack, of course, is Oliver Willis, who obviously doesn't get paid enough to know how to handle information given "on background".
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Damn... I feel so unimportant. No one ever calls or writes and tells me what to say. I’m feeling neglected by Tony and company. *sigh*
 
Written By: Teresa
URL: http://technicalities.mu.nu
Is Doughnut Boy still getting paid? Who would’ve guessed.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
And if the person was so positive about the administration’s Latest Bold New Strategy For Victory, No, Not That One, No Not That One, No The Other One — they would have had the guts to not go on background. You can make all the insinuations you’d like about me (nobody pays me to blog, nobody calls the shots on my blog but me) but I don’t carry water for propaganda for people "on background".
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Damn... I feel so unimportant. No one ever calls or writes and tells me what to say. I’m feeling neglected by Tony and company. *sigh*
McQ, I told you to make certain she was invited to the next gathering.

You shall be punished for this failure.
 
Written By: Ruch Limbaugh
URL: http://
damnit... That was supposed to be "rush"... son of a...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
finally figured out IE 7.0, btw...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Did the senior administraiton official mention the following quote from Bush from in public in March of 2005 (right around the same time as that "classfied" bulletin - as AJC reports it - was produced):
Recently, we learned that Osama bin Laden has urged the terrorist Zarqawi to form a group to conduct attacks outside Iraq, including here in the United States. We’re on a constant hunt for bin Laden. We’re keeping the pressure on him, keeping him in hiding. And today, Zarqawi understands that coalition and Iraqi troops are on a constant hunt for him, as well. Coalition and Iraqi forces have caught and killed several of his key lieutenants. We’re working every day and night to dismantle his network and to bring him to justice. (Applause.)
Did the "senior administration official" also reveal that the New England Patriots won the Superbowl that year?
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
You missed it then too, apparently./..

Releasing the documentation does nothing for you either, apparently...

I suspect that if OBL walked up to you and admitted to everything Bush has said, you’d acuse him of being a Buchco croney, and working to ’keep the black man down’, or whatever you idiots rail on these days...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
who obviously doesn’t get paid enough to know how to handle information given "on background".
I think Snow’s old employer changed the rules the for information given on background.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You missed it then too, apparently./..
Missed it? Well, since the Homeland Security threat level did not go up at the time, I did not have occasion to study Bush’s speech at Chertoff’s swearing in. After all, if this had been a serious threat, I assume the Bush administration would have done the responsible thing, and raised the threat level. After all, Iraq is the main front on the War on terror. And had Bush really believed that bin Laden was seriously capable of attempting to open in a new front, Bush would have warned us. Bush did say it in public, so the cat was out of the bag at that point, so to speak.

In any event, you are missing my point. The effort today by the White House was to represent this as freshly declassified information when it clearly was not. It’s also an effort to point out that this blog is contributing to that misperception.

Did the "senior administration official" reference the Chertoff swearing in speech on background? If the offical did, why wasn’t it referenced on this site, if only for context? If the official didn’t, why not?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Precisely as I said the other day; they are heavily invested in the defeat of the united states. Their political game will not allow for anything else.

Thank you for providing such an excellent example, Oliver. You’ve made my point for me.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
You can make all the insinuations you’d like about me (nobody pays me to blog, nobody calls the shots on my blog but me) but I don’t carry water for propaganda for people "on background".
Which again points to the fact that you have no idea what "on background" means. And of course, other than claiming it is propaganda, you offer nothing of substance to rebut it.

Secondly, of course, you obviously missed the opening part of the post where CNN cited a White House spokesman by name who put out the same information. So obviously the information wasn’t something anyone was ashamed to identify themselves with, was it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I think Snow’s old employer changed the rules the for information given on background.
When you’re on a call like that and the first thing the person says "this is on background and can be attributed to a "senior administration official", that’s what you do. Those are how the rules work. If that’s unacceptable, you hang up the phone. I know the guy’s name and I know where he works, but the bottom line is that was the deal.

It is clear Oliver and a whole bunch of others don’t understand that.

The information was also embargoed until Bush’s speech was given. That gave me a reasonable amount of time to attempt to check the info out, and in so doing that, found the AJC piece.

 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
finally figured out IE 7.0, btw...
Way to go Scott - no confusing you with a certain other someone with a similar moniker ;-)
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
nobody pays me to blog, nobody calls the shots on my blog but me)
....and George Soros that is, right Oliver?

RIGHT?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Way to go Scott - no confusing you with a certain other someone with a similar moniker ;-)
There are days I like IE 7.0, and days I want to bash in Gates’ head... Tabs rock, but the changing of where I find my old commands ’confuses and infuriates me’ (to quote Lurr)
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
I’m perfectly aware how information on background works, I just think in this situation it’s clearly cowardice.
 
Written By: Oliver Willis
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
I think Snow’s old employer changed the rules the for information given on background.
When you’re on a call like that and the first thing the person says "this is on background and can be attributed to a "senior administration official", that’s what you do. Those are how the rules work.
My point was that when it accomplished the political goals of FOXNEWS, they republished a background interview in which Dick Clarke was to be quoted as a "senior administration official" as a press conference BY Dick Clarke ignoring those "rules".

So when I say they changed rules, I mean that once FOX did what they did with the Clarke interview, they effectively changed those rules, and if a major news organization does it for political effect, why would anyone be surprised when an independant blogger does it.

How about this... "on background" is BS and NO ONE should abide by the rules. If they can’t saywhat they need to say in the light of day, then they shouldn’t say it at all.

Cap

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I’m perfectly aware how information on background works, I just think in this situation it’s clearly cowardice.
There is a president and a White House spokesman who essentially put out precisely the same info ... cowardice?

If you are "perfectly aware" of how information on background works, then you would probably know that you don’t put your name out there when the President of the US is going to use the same info. And that makes me doubt seriously whether you are "perfectly aware" of how information on background works.

Cap:
How about this... "on background" is BS and NO ONE should abide by the rules. If they can’t saywhat they need to say in the light of day, then they shouldn’t say it at all.
What a whine.

FYI, it was said in the light of day, at the Coast Guard academy in a speech by the President.

Or’d you miss that?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Cool site!
 
Written By: Kenia
URL: http://www.google.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider