Limbaugh v. Moyers

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 14, 2004
2,436
5,541
OBJECTIVE reality
I've felt uneasy listening to Rush Limbaugh ever since that windbag first hit the national scene years and years ago...uneasy because even then his outrageous lies struck me as dangerous. While others were dismissing him as a mere entertainer that nobody should take seriously, I was all too cognizant of the fundamental propaganda rule that lies, repeated loudly enough and often enough, "become" the truth.

Simultaneously I've been alarmed at the sheer cowardice of the media which, I think, can be traced all the way back to the Reagan administration. It absolutely amazes me that with an administration as corrupt as this one that there is no one in the MSM crusading to expose the bastards.

But then there's Bill Moyers. Moyers apparently delivered a speech recently which hit the nail on the head so precisely that it ticked off that most pompous guardian of ethics and morality, Rush.

Bill Moyers says that journalists have a responsibility to question those in power.

Rush Limbaugh, speaking for the economic and political elites that currently occupy positions of authority, responds by charging that Moyers is "insane."

A debate has opened regarding the role of reporting in George W. Bush's America. But this debate is about a great deal more than one president or one moment in history. At the most fundamental level, it is about whether the American experiment as imagined by the most visionary of its founders can long endure.

Moyers set the stage at the National Conference for Media Reform last week, where he delivered a call for the redemption of American journalism. Though he was appearing less than a week after it had been revealed that the Bush administration ally who chairs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting had waged a secret campaign to drive him off the air, the former host of PBS's "NOW" program was calm and collected. The winner of thirty Emmy Awards reflected upon his own work and that of his colleagues on "NOW." But his real purpose was to defend the craft of journalism against the battering it has taken from those who believe reporters should be little more than stenographers to power. At a time when too many prominent journalists have accepted the diminished standards that their critics would impose upon them, Moyers raged against the dying of the light -- not so much for himself as for the Republic that will not stand without a free, skeptical and courageous press.

"We're seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age-old ambition of power and ideology to squelch and punish journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable," Moyers explained to the 2,300 journalists, academics and activists who had gathered in St. Louis.

Moyers proceeded to describe the behind-the-scenes pressure that CPB board chair Ken Tomlinson and other White House allies exerted in a campaign to get the NOW team to trim its sails. The "crime" committed by Moyers and his crew was not one of liberal bias, as became evident when the former host of the program described the ideological diversity of the guests on NOW, read a letter praising the show from conservative Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, and recalled the support it had received from the widow of a New York City firefighter who died at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Rather, Moyers explained, "One reason I'm in hot water is because my colleagues and I at NOW didn't play by the conventional rules of Beltway journalism. Those rules divide the world into Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, and allow journalists to pretend they have done their job if, instead of reporting the truth behind the news, they merely give each side an opportunity to spin the news."
Link

What Moyers said is not important so much for its originality -- people have been complaining about this for years -- as for the fact that it's rare for a media personality to acknowledge this failing. I take it as Moyers challenging modern journalists to check between their legs and see if they still have anything down there.

It's also notable for having infuriated Uncle Rush. I'm glad it irritated the other side, because we need to talk about this in the public discourse.

(And as an aside: has anybody noticed that the formerly ebullient Rush seems constantly on the edge of explosion lately? I don't know if it's drug withdrawal symptoms or if he's frustrated that the liberals are finally causing some trouble in Congress, but he seems to be headed towards a nervous breakdown or something. Anyway.)

So I say good for Bill Moyers. If the rest of the MSM doesn't pick this up, then I hope he keeps scolding them until he does shame them into talking about it. Whatever happens, I just hope this doesn't turn out to be one more speech that just vanishes into the ether. The issue is too damned important.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
The more our government and society are controlled by far right-wingers, the louder Rush screams about the overbearing madness of the liberals.

Classic fascist-style propaganda: even as you murder your enemies, you must keep crying about how they can destroy you at any moment, about how you are the weak one and they the privileged and powerful.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Interesting, but I think the Nation article got one fairly big thing wrong. Limbaugh hasn't always been the one who "defends a corrupt status quo." When he was on the outside looking in, he was working just as hard to corrupt the status quo. The consistent thread in Limbaughism is not so much alliances with the people in power as the flagrant corruption of truth.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 14, 2004
2,436
5,541
OBJECTIVE reality
Whoo-ey! Moyers is on a tear. You really have to read this whole article, but here's a sample of what he's continuing to say:

I take in stride attacks by the radical right-wingers who have not given up demonizing me although I retired over six months ago. They've been after me for years now and I suspect they will be stomping on my grave to make sure I don't come back from the dead. I should remind them, however, that one of our boys pulled it off some 2,000 years ago--after the Pharisees, Sadducees and Caesar's surrogates thought they had shut him up for good. Of course I won't be expecting that kind of miracle, but I should put my detractors on notice: They might just compel me out of the rocking chair and back into the anchor chair.

Who are they? They are the people obsessed with control, using the government to threaten and intimidate. They are the people who are hollowing out middle-class security even as they enlist the sons and daughters of the working class in a war to make sure Ahmad Chalabi winds up controlling Iraq's oil. They are the people who turn faith-based initiatives into a slush fund and who encourage the pious to look heavenward and pray so as not to see the long arm of privilege and power picking their pockets. They are the people who squelch free speech in an effort to obliterate dissent and consolidate their orthodoxy into the official view of reality from which any deviation becomes unpatriotic heresy.

And if that's editorializing, so be it. A free press is one where it's OK to state the conclusion you're led to by the evidence....

Then strange things began to happen. Friends in Washington called to say that they had heard of muttered threats that the PBS reauthorization would be held off "unless Moyers is dealt with." Apparently there was apoplexy in the right wing aerie when I closed the broadcast one Friday night by putting an American flag in my lapel and said:

I wore my flag tonight. First time. Until now I haven't thought it necessary to display a little metallic icon of patriotism for everyone to see. It was enough to vote, pay my taxes, perform my civic duties, speak my mind, and do my best to raise our kids to be good Americans.

Sometimes I would offer a small prayer of gratitude that I had been born in a country whose institutions sustained me, whose armed forces protected me, and whose ideals inspired me; I offered my heart's affections in return. It no more occurred to me to flaunt the flag on my chest than it did to pin my mother's picture on my lapel to prove her son's love. Mother knew where I stood; so does my country. I even tuck a valentine in my tax returns on April 15.

So what's this doing here? Well, I put it on to take it back. The flag's been hijacked and turned into a logo-- the trademark of a monopoly on patriotism. On those Sunday morning talk shows, official chests appear adorned with the flag as if it is the good housekeeping seal of approval. During the State of the Union, did you notice Bush and Cheney wearing the flag? How come? No administration's patriotism is ever in doubt, only its policies. And the flag bestows no immunity from error. When I see flags sprouting on official lapels, I think of the time in China when I saw Mao's little red book on every official's desk, omnipresent and unread.

But more galling than anything are all those moralistic ideologues in Washington sporting the flag in their lapels while writing books and running Web sites and publishing magazines attacking dissenters as un-American. They are people whose ardor for war grows disproportionately to their distance from the fighting. They're in the same league as those swarms of corporate lobbyists wearing flags and prowling Capitol Hill for tax breaks even as they call for more spending on war.

So I put this on as a modest riposte to men with flags in their lapels who shoot missiles from the safety of Washington think tanks, or argue that sacrifice is good as long as they don't have to make it, or approve of bribing governments to join the coalition of the willing (after they first stash the cash.) I put it on to remind myself that not every patriot thinks we should do to the people of Baghdad what Bin Laden did to us. The flag belongs to the country, not to the government. And it reminds me that it's not un-American to think that war--except in self-defense--is a failure of moral imagination, political nerve, and diplomacy. Come to think of it, standing up to your government can mean standing up for your country.
Now there, folks, is somebody who has integrity and guts, concepts wholly foreign to the people running this country right now.

Knowing the connivings of the Republicans, PBS could very well end up under the heavy thumb of the current administration. But it's nice to see that instead of cowering from the bullies as everyone else seems to be doing, Moyers continues to put up his fists and take them on.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Wait until we have a Democrat in office again, then Rush will be all about Freedom of the Press. I wonder what he'd do if someone like McCain was Pres? Tough call I guess. Rush is just preaching to the converted anyway. You can only fool the masses for so long before they start seeing the truth, and a lot of people are getting fed up with being told not to look at the man behind the emerald curtain.

I'm glad that Moyers is fighting back. He doesn't deserve this any more than Newsweek or AI did. Now, CBS news... that's another story.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Lordy Moyers lays the smack down in this one. Remind me never to piss Bill Moyers off.

I'll put a few of the gems here, but seriously go read this.
I want to show you a very brief excerpt from that first documentary. It aired on PBS in January 1992 with the title Minimum Wages: The New Economy. You'll see the father of one family as he looks for work after losing his machinist's job at the big manufacturer, Briggs and Stratton. You'll meet his wife in their kitchen as they make a desperate call to the bank that is threatening to foreclose on their home after failing to meet their mortgage payments. During our filming the fathers in both families became seriously ill. One was hospitalized for two months, leaving the family $30,000 in debt. You'll hear the second family talk about what it's like when both parents lose their jobs, depriving them of health insurance and putting their children's education up for grabs. Take a look.

[VIDEO]

Seeing those people again I thought of the interviews that the Campaign for America's Future conducted around the country on the eve of your conference. A woman in Columbus, Ohio, told one interviewer something that I've heard in different ways in my own reporting over the past few years. She said: "Everyday life pulls families apart." It takes a moment for the implications of that to hit home. Think about it: Our country, the richest and most powerful nation in the history of the race—a place where "everyday life pulls families apart."

What turns these personal traumas into a political travesty is that the people we're talking about are deeply patriotic. They love America. But they no longer believe they matter to the people who run the country. When our film opens, they are watching the inauguration of Bill Clinton on television in 1992. By the end of the decade, when our final film in the series aired, they were paying little attention to politics; they simply didn't think their concerns would ever be addressed by our governing elites. They are not cynical—their religious faith leaves them little capacity for cynicism—but they know the system is rigged against them. As it is.

You know the story: For years now a relatively small fraction of American households have been garnering an extreme concentration of wealth and income as large economic and financial institutions obtained unprecedented levels of power over daily life. In 1960 the gap in terms of wealth between the top 20 percent and the bottom 20 percent was 30-fold. Four decades later it is more than 75 fold.
Or this - courtesy of the columnist, Mark Shields. It seems workers in the American territory of the Northern Mariana Islands were being forced to labor under sweatshop conditions producing garments for Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Gap and Liz Claiborne. The garments were then shipped tariff-free and quota-free to the American market where they were entitled to display the coveted "Made in the USA" label. When Republican Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska heard that these people were being paid barely half the U.S. minimum hourly wage and were forced to live behind barbed wire in squalid shacks without plumbing while working 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, with none of the legal protections U.S. workers are guaranteed, he became enraged. He got the Senate to pass a bill - unanimously - that would extend the protection of our laws to the U.S. territory of the Northern Marianas. But then the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff moved into action with an SOS to his good friend, Tom DeLay. The records show they met at least two dozen times. DeLay traveled to the Marianas with his family and staff - on a "scholarship" provided by Abramoff's clients where they played golf and went snorkeling not far from the sweatshops (some scholarship!). Was Tom DeLay offended by what he saw? To the contrary. He told the Washington Post that the sweatshops were "a perfect petri dish of capitalism." ABC News recorded him praising Abramoff's clients by saying: "You are a shining light for what is happening to the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we are trying to do in America and leading the world in the free-market system." And Tom Delay - the rightwing radicals' revisionist incarnation of Saint Francis of Assisi—killed the Senate bill.
Standing there last night, I sensed that temple of democracy where Lincoln broods to be as deeply steeped in melancholy as it was during the McCarthy reign of terror, the grief of Vietnam, or the crimes of Watergate. You stand there silently contemplating the words that gave voice to Lincoln's fierce determination to save the Union - his resolve that "government of, by, and for the people shall not perish from the earth" - and then you turn and look out, as he does, on a city where those words are daily mocked. This is no longer Lincoln's city. And those people from all walks of life making their way up the steps to pay their respects to this martyr for the Union - it's not their city, either. This is an occupied city, a company town, a wholly owned subsidiary of the powerful and privileged whose have hired an influence racket to run it. The records are so poorly kept it's impossible to know how many lobbyists there really are in this town, but the Center for Public Integrity found that their ranks include 240 former members of Congress and heads of federal agencies and over 2000 senior officials who passed through the revolving door of government at warp speed. Lobbyists now spend $3 billion a year buying influence and access for their clients and, according to the New York Times , over the last six years spent more than twice the amount spent by candidates for federal office. Once again this is a divided city. Not between North and South as in Lincoln's time, but between those who pay to play - those who can buy the government they want—and those who can't even afford even a seat in the bleachers.
Then you open Jared Diamond's new book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail to find the Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar's description of an America where rich elites cocoon themselves "in gated communities, guarded by private security guards, and filled with people who drink bottled water, depend on private pensions, and send their children to private schools." Gradually, they lose the motivation "to support the police force, the municipal water supply, Social Security, and public schools." Any society where the elite insulate themselves from the consequences of their action, Diamond warns, contains a built-in blueprint for failure.

You read all this and realize you have been seeing it with your own eyes as a reporter in the field. You're seeing the mugging of the American Dream right before your eyes.
Let me tell you something about these people ("the point of view of the fish," remember?)

They don't ask to get rich.

They want a job that pays a living wage.

They want social security to be there in their old age, for their own sake and so their kids won't be burdened with their care.

They want a simple, comprehensive health care system.

They want their livelihoods and the fate of their communities to be taken into account as the elites in government and corporations measure profits, economic growth and the GDP.

And they would like to see the political system cleaned up, so the playing field is more level and their voices not wholly drowned out by the deep-pocket predators from the Business Roundtable.

These are not radical views. These are not even "liberal" views. They are just plain American values.
It's an old story in America. We shouldn't be surprised by it any more. Hold up a mirror to this moment and you will see reflected back to you the first Gilded Age in the last part of the 19th century. Then, as now, the great captains of industry and finance could say, with Frederick Townsend Martin, "We are rich. We own America. We got it, God knows how, but we intend to keep it."

They were deadly serious. Go for the evidence to such magisterial studies of American history as Growth of the American Republic (Morison, Commager, and Leuchtenberg), and you'll read how they did it: They gained control of newspapers and magazines. They subsidized candidates. They bought legislation and even judicial decisions. To justify their greed and power they drew on history, law, economics, and religion to concoct a philosophy that would come to be known as Social Darwinism - "backed up by the quasi religious principle that the acquisition of wealth was a mark of divine favor." One of their favorite apologists, Professor William Graham Sumner of Yale, said: "If we do not like the survival of the fittest, we have only one possible alternative, and that is the survival of the unfittest. The former is the law of civilization; the latter is the law of anti-civilization.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 14, 2004
2,436
5,541
OBJECTIVE reality
Wow. Just...wow. Moyers is suddenly acting like a man on a crusade. He's not only wonderfully articulate, he's really, really blunt about the sad reality of America today. It's so refreshing.

I just wish it were getting more coverage. But then again, perhaps that is why Moyers is "on a crusade". One of the strategies of the far right is to take an issue (no matter how absurd or bogus), and repeat it over and over and over until the MSM pick up on it, giving it enough credibility to move into the national debate.

Maybe Moyers plans to keep talking about this until the subject moves from the relatively paltry MSM coverage it's getting now, to the dinner tables of American families. He seems to want to be our Howard Beale, telling us the uncomfortable truths and telling us to get good and loud and yell, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!" God knows we need someone like that to inspire more people to get off their disillusioned butts and hit the streets in protest.

My admiration for Moyers is growing by leaps and bounds. As a truth-teller, he's joined the ranks of guys like Al Franken and Jim Hightower...and right now, he's putting himself in the line of fire more than even those guys. All I can say is, "Go, man, go!"
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
I think my favorite part is where he mentions:
You must be like the Irishman coming upon a street brawl who yells in a loud voice: "Is this a private fight, or can anyone get in it?" Not waiting, he wades in.

Wade in! Go home and tell the truth to your neighbors and fight the corruption of the system. But it's not enough just to say how bad the others are. You owe your opponents the compliment of a good argument
Take it to them.

And that last line is key as well. It's why I like 'Rat and some of the other conservative posters, and have others on ignore. Remembering that would do a lot to raise the level of discourse in this country. Whatever else you may think of Moyers, he puts forth a good argument that isn't loaded with rhetoric and insults.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
Thomas Veil said:
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
i think part of the reason he's mad is because he just wants to write his book on LBJ, but he feels he's needed more in this way.

i've got a truckful of respect for him.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
Thomas Veil said:
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
Network right? A little before my time, but oddly apropos. Isn't it sad that the bad stuff in that movie has come true, but we don't seem to have many Howard Beale's to counteract the O'Reilys, Coulters, Hannitys, and Limbaughs.

Who knows, if people start listening to people like Moyers a little more, more of those shows may become unpopular, unprofitable, and cancelled (one can dream can't he?). Crossfire's already gone. People are taking comedians like Stewart and Franken more seriously, could happen. All Moyer's needs to do is throw in a little more comedy and he'll be a hit.

But then, we all know what most of the people who listen to people like Rush care about.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Since Rush likes to describe himself as being an entertainer, you could look at it this way.

Rush and Hannity are unfunny comedians who are truthfully challenged. Franken and Stewart are funny comedians who tell the truth.

The subject matter is just as serious. Though much better if the truth is told.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Actually, Howard Beale is certifiably nuts, and his celebrity has more to do with his insanity being put on display on TV than anything he's got to say. This is the point of this very dark and cynical film, which anticipated "reality TV" and confessional/confrontational talk shows by quite a few years. Almost invented them, you might say -- though they were probably inevitable.

Rupert Pupkin, ladies and gentlemen, Rupert Pupkin...
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 14, 2004
2,436
5,541
OBJECTIVE reality
Well, Beale was indeed insane; and yes, people tuned in because they were mindless drones enjoying the freak show. Nevertheless, Beale spoke the blunt truth.

The irony, of course, is that when he got the audience to react with outrage to the world crumbling around them, they didn't do it because they had arrived at that angry state themselves...they did it because someone on TV told them to.

(BTW, if anybody wants to watch one of the best, most dead-on satires of all time, find "Network" at your local rental store. The background will seem ancient -- the film refers to "The Six Million Dollar Man" and "Phyllis" -- but it's a hilarious and still highly topical film. And you'll cringe at how much of it is coming true.)
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Xtremehkr said:
Rush and Hannity are unfunny comedians who are truthfully challenged. Franken and Stewart are funny comedians who tell the truth.
X, Franky and Stewy are just as challenged as Rush and Hannity. And for everyone who gets worked up at Rush, there is another pieved at Moore. The only 2 I dare watch anymore are Scarbourgh and Chris @ Hardball. Granted neither are outstanding, but I believe they slant less than most.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
stubeeef said:
X, Franky and Stewy are just as challenged as Rush and Hannity. And for everyone who gets worked up at Rush, there is another pieved at Moore. The only 2 I dare watch anymore are Scarbourgh and Chris @ Hardball. Granted neither are outstanding, but I believe they slant less than most.
I can think of no basis for that statement, and no way of supporting it.

Stewart does a televised show and if that were true there would be many examples readily available. The same is true of Franken.

I can provide countless examples of Rush and Hannity's distortions. Examples show up here all the time.

If Franken and Stewart are lying, let's see it. I listen to Franken and watch Stewart and find no reason to reach the same conclusion.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
Thomas Veil said:
Well, Beale was indeed insane; and yes, people tuned in because they were mindless drones enjoying the freak show. Nevertheless, Beale spoke the blunt truth.

The irony, of course, is that when he got the audience to react with outrage to the world crumbling around them, they didn't do it because they had arrived at that angry state themselves...they did it because someone on TV told them to.

(BTW, if anybody wants to watch one of the best, most dead-on satires of all time, find "Network" at your local rental store. The background will seem ancient -- the film refers to "The Six Million Dollar Man" and "Phyllis" -- but it's a hilarious and still highly topical film. And you'll cringe at how much of it is coming true.)
The point being, on TV, the truth doesn't matter, only the show. I think that point is often missed.

My personal favorite film about TV is "Quiz Show." One of the most overlooked films of the '90s. Most people who saw it thought it was about the quiz show scandals of the '50s, but it was about much more than that.

Also, "The King of Comedy."
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
stubeeef said:
Franky and Stewy are just as challenged as Rush and Hannity. And for everyone who gets worked up at Rush, there is another pieved at Moore. The only 2 I dare watch anymore are Scarbourgh and Chris @ Hardball. Granted neither are outstanding, but I believe they slant less than most.
I wouldn't say Stewart is anywhere near as bad as either of those people. First of all, he clearly states that he is a comedian. The only time I've heard Rush say that he's an entertainer is after he got caught being a hypocrite for the drug abuse. Then he went right back to the spin. Plus, I've heard Stewart make fun of Dems on plenty of occasions. If you've actually listened to both as much as I have, you'd never say that. Franken is a definite lefty, but also nowhere near as bad. And he isn't as honesty challenged (though he does defend Liberals more than he should). Plus, he also clearly calls himself an entertainer. Don't get me started on Hannity. He makes O'Reilly look like the moderate he claims to be.

Matthews is great, but Scarbourgh is definitely right leaning. The last article I read by him he was talking about how great the war in Iraq was going and how anyone who questioned that was un-American. I like him sometimes, but he is anything but moderate. Still somehow better than Rush or Hannity though.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
I know people like to be fair, but I want to see one example of where Franken is clearly lying or deliberately trying to mislead his listeners.

I would like the same for Stewart.

If none can be provided than you are being unfair to Stewart and Franken. Just because Franken is proudly left leaning does not mean that he needs to distort the truth any. In fact, he is building a reputation for doing just the opposite.

In this instance, the left is vastly different from the right.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
xtremehkr said:
but I want to see one example of where Franken is clearly lying
ON the way to work, but here is the first site that comes to mind........

These are just ones in his book I think, could be wrong..

Link

It is usually the ones who spout there purity that are the worst, like rush too.
 

Attachments

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
stubeeef said:
ON the way to work, but here is the first site that comes to mind........

These are just ones in his book I think, could be wrong..

Link

It is usually the ones who spout there purity that are the worst, like rush too.
Stu, the problem with sites like that is the whole purpose is not to set the record straight but simply to distort and smear. for example.

The truth? The plot to kill the Pope was thwarted by Philippine officials in January 1995, less than one week before the pontiff’s arrival in Manila!1 Abdul Murad was captured after he and Yousef accidentally started a fire in their apartment while trying to mix explosives. Upon interrogation, Murad confessed to the plot to kill the Pope.2
There is no doubt that Philipine Officials were involved, it is true that Clinton himself did not arrive in the Philipines to thwart the plot. However, Franken is talking about the intelligence work that goes into preventing terrorism and the dissemination of information that prevents terrorists attacks.

Franken is not lying, the author of that site is splitting hairs to make Franken look like a liar. The facts is, the team Clinton had in place was the team that collected and disseminated the information that prevented the attack. Of course it was the Philipine Officials who acted in Manila, it's their country and their jurisdiction.

Some of the other "lies" read more like smears, than lies. All in all, you have 24 questionable accusations from a less than credible website that serves the interests of hardcore republicans.

Rush gets close to topping 24 lies in a single show sometimes by continually restating factually wrong information.

Here's a link to 19 pages of Rush Limbaugh magic, from a website that has not been around for a quarter of Rushs career.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
why are you giving my rush links? rush is full of crap! but so are some on the left. I believe at most half of what any single source tells me, from the right or left. Blindly follow franken if you wish. You asked for examples, i gave em.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Feb 14, 2004
2,436
5,541
OBJECTIVE reality
I checked a couple of the "Franken lies" in stu's link.

One claims that Roger Ailes had nothing to do with the Willie Horton attack ad of 1988; that it was a creation of something called the National Security Political Action Committee. This is sourced from Salon and insidepolitics.org.

Yet Franken's book claims that Roger Ailes and Lee Atwater directed the Horton ad, with Ailes saying, "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Franken cites the 11/14/88 issue of Time, and says the comment was reported in several other publications as well.

So it's a "he said/she said" kind of thing. It would be interesting, though, to see whether Ailes had any "unofficial" links to NSPAC.

The pope assassination/Philippines/Clinton thing? Their sources are, among others, Regan Books and Regnery. Regan publishes Hannity, and Regnery did the Swift Boats fable, whereas Franken's source was Barton Gellman of The Washington Post.

Other claims about Franken "lies" cite sources like Newsmax.

Not exactly convincing.