tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post5838861706634659635..comments2023-09-29T06:57:06.991-07:00Comments on Anglachel's Journal: FramedAnglachelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01110546252851760414noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-61848910964291168672009-05-23T11:32:36.105-07:002009-05-23T11:32:36.105-07:00I guess Somerby's oddly discordant criticism of Pe...I guess Somerby's oddly discordant criticism of Pelosi's "sweeping" claim could amount to him saying that, regardless of the actual merits of her statements, it's the kind of claim that our lovely media will pounce on and make fun of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-61821008694717081332009-05-18T18:35:00.000-07:002009-05-18T18:35:00.000-07:00RSM,
I agree that Bob presented it weirdly, which...RSM,<br /><br />I agree that Bob presented it weirdly, which is why I called it out. <br /><br />Somerby is holding Oliphant up as a demonstration of what the press is doing, someone who literally illustrates what is going on in their heads. It isn't sarcasm. He is saying look at this picture to understand what the MSM really thinks of Democrats and understand that they still hate you. Pelosi (whatever her actual failings) is being fucked over. Her protestations are being belittled and trivialized, reduced to something that is itself a symbol of the vacuity of the the press, while the true issue - torture as the new normal - drops out of view.<br /><br />Somerby will *not* criticize Obama. He will not endanger a sitting Democratic president. But he is also too smart and too much of a liberal to just give in. He knows that Obama will throw the entire liberal cause under the bus without hesitation. He knows that Obama escapes criticism because he rejects the party agenda - just like his buddies in the press.<br /><br />So what is Somerby to do? He lays the facts out on the table, hoping the readers will put two and two together on their own. <br /><br />That's my take.<br /><br />AnglachelAnglachelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01110546252851760414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-70108542591796200272009-05-18T07:33:00.000-07:002009-05-18T07:33:00.000-07:00I seldom disagree with the things you write. And ...I seldom disagree with the things you write. And I thank you for explaining Somerby to me – he sometimes talks in “blog-speak” to such a degree that I have a hard time knowing exactly what he’s trying to get at.<br /><br />This time, as usual, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. But I am angry at Pelosi – and my reason may be one that others in the unwashed masses will feel, too. What pisses me off about Nancy (other than the fact that I can’t stand to watch her speak) is that she represents all of the “others” who were sent to represent us in government during the time our executive branch was doing its best to destroy our constitution and our reputation.<br /> <br />I don’t really care what Nancy knew when. I care that at sometime in the past 6 years she did know. She knew a lot more than any of us could know. And what did she do about it? NODT - not one damn thing. <br /><br />She stood up at her press conference like a smirking chimp (remind you of anyone else?) and insisted that the fact an aid told her “we” were torturing didn’t count. It only mattered that the CIA didn’t tell her to her face.<br /><br />So while the press and Nancy and everyone else get their knickers in a twist about being played by the GOP (once again), I am fuming because of something else. <br /> <br />They all knew “we” were torturing (she admits that). They all knew that “we” were lied into this war. They all knew – and they did nothing (NODT) even though they – every bloody one of them – were elected to represent us – not them, not their special interests. US, and what "we" stand for (perhaps I should say "stood" for).<br /><br />So Nancy may be innocent of some things. But she is as guilty as the whole disgusting crew in DC on so many other things that I am set to fuming – once again.<br /> <br />We gave our (my former) party the Dems they wanted and needed. We gave them the muscle to take the Speaker’s seat and become a majority in the Senate. We’ve sacrificed and walked and talked and donated and hoped (I hate that word!) and what did they give us in return. NODT. And they're still doing nothing.<br /><br />So when the dust settles about what Nancy knew and when she knew it, and when the facts remain clear that Bush/Cheney and his whole disgusting crew are war criminals, don’t forget – so are Nancy and her friends.<br /><br />With friends like this, we really don’t need any enemies (IMHO).Marshahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04729627562550166150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-18613154887634416322009-05-18T07:23:00.000-07:002009-05-18T07:23:00.000-07:00While Queen Nancy may not have been in the positio...While Queen Nancy may not have been in the position to implement or stop any policy of torture, I can't get over the fact what a silly argument it is that the <I>Speaker of the House</I> did not know what was going on. Right - Pete Hoekstra knew, by Nancy Pelosi did not. <br /><br />It's a little hard to believe Nancy when she has given multiple versions of what and wasn't allegedly told to her (psst - that's what happens when you <B>lie</B> - you can't keep your story straight).<br /><br />And really - Leon Panetta, a former Democratic Congressman, and inside party-player, is just going to throw the Speaker of his own party under the bus even for something that happened under his Republican predecessor?<br /><br />Color me skeptical.....cmugirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04489238068163889878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4119943.post-8781273691933531862009-05-18T06:43:00.000-07:002009-05-18T06:43:00.000-07:00Somerby needs an editor. From that post one would ...Somerby needs an editor. From that post one would think that Oliphant is criticizing the press for their baloney. Oliphant's cartoon reflects that baloney through and through; it does not reflect Somerby's view of the dynamic that is at work in Pelosi's treatment by the press. I get the feeling he knows this, and that that is what he meant to say, but that's not the way it comes across. Either that, or his sarcasm is proving too subtle for me here. And I don't associate quiet irony with Somerby any more than I associate underplaying with William Shatner.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. He's otherwise on target. As is usually the case.R. S. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13044341905789599207noreply@blogger.com